DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


DIVINITY SCHOOL 
LIBRARY 


i page eer oe, 


pearance 


a 
if 
i 
‘ 


ey 


0 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2023 with funding from 
Duke University Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/dissertationonsi01 dowd 


A 


DISSERTATION, 


# 
ON THE 


SINAITIC AND ABRAHAMIC 


COVENANTS; 


SHEWING THE FORMER TO BE ONLY 


TEMPORARY ; 


THE LATTER 


EVERLASTING, 


BY DANIEL DOW, 
PASTOR OF A CHURCH IN THOMPSON, CON. 
ee 


HARTFORD: 


PRINTED BY PETER B. GLEASON AND C@. 


\ Dw. S. 
COW) as / 


al aA ¥ — 7 il i] “Ty 
1 ei i ah} t rT. é 


TC THE READER. 


®, 


THE following is. Dissertation upon an old sub- 
ject. But old as it is, it will readily be conceded, that 
“multitudes of people are still very far from having a 
correct understanding of it. Even such as have writ- 
ten upon it, though many things have been suggested 
highly worthy of notice, yet generally speaking, have 
not been so happy'as to be entirely consistent, either 
with themselves or with the scriptures of truth.— 
Amongst them all, peradventure, the whole truth may 
be found, but it is scattered so far and wide, through 
so many volumes of different and contradictory writers, 
and has been intermixed with so many things of a con- 
trary nature, that it is fitly comparable to nothing but 
gold in the ore, valuable indeed in itself, but requiring 
“much labor of smelting before it can be fit for use. 
Though no new ideas therefore may be here suggested, 
which may not some where or other have been exhib- . 
ited before, yet it is hoped, that this little book may 
not be wholly useless, if it has brought the truth into 
a more concise, connected, and consistent view, with- 
out any of those personal invectives, which have ren- 
dered many publications otherwise meritorious, alto- 
gether unfit to be put into the hands of a serious en- 
uirer. 

Should this Dissertation fall into the hands of an 
Antipedobaptist, we shall go along so lovingly together 
throughout the whole of the Sinai Dispensation, it is 
hoped he will be ready to attend with candor to what 
is afterward said concerning the perpetuity of the Abra- 
-hamic Covenant. Should it fall into the hands of a 
_Pedobaptist, as, no doubt, it will, the perpetuity of the 
Abrahamic Covenant, and some of the inferences 
drawn from it, will be so consonant to his own senti- 
ments, it is presumed, he will be ready to hear, with 


S36‘) 


A , 
i 
patience, the peculiarities of the Sinai Covenant ex- 
ploded : especially, when he shall come to see that his” 
argument is disencumbered of so many difficulties, and | 
that he is so much the gainer by it. Indeed, if a pro- 
per distinction were to be made between the two Cov- 
enants, and proper inferences were to be drawn from 
them, the writer is not without a hope that both Pedo- 
baptists, and Antipedobaptists, would become consist- 
ent with'themselves, and would cordially meet upon 
the broad basis of the Abrahamic Covenant, 

Should any one be dissatisfied with what is said, 
concerning the blessings promised in the Sinai Cove- 
nant, he is desired still to remember, that whether 
those blessings were temporal, or spiritual, or doth, it 
doth not at all affect the main argument : the Cove- 
nants are still distinct, and the one is abrogated, while 
the other is perpetual. 

On the whole, if every difficulty be not removed, 
let not the reader be either disappointed or discou- 
raged. If we have found the road we ought to walk 
in, what matters it, if we cannot tell the use of every 
antique building which stands by the’side of it, or of 
every lane and alley which turns out of it ?. If we can 
understand the Abrahamic Covenant, and obtain an 
interest in the blessings of it, we are happy to believe, 
that our ignorance of many things relating to the pe- 
culiar Covenant of Sinai, which is confessedly abolish- 
ed, will never prove fatal, however desirable it eer 
be, to have amore perfect understanding of them. 
Should the following Dissertation serve only as an in- 
dex to point to the “fountain of truth ; ; should it only 
give the general outlines of a very extensive and im- 
portant subject; and especially should it be instru- 
mental of directing any benighted traveller in the way, 
and leading him out of the wilderness of error ; the 
author would by no means consider his labor as being 
in vain; notwithstanding he is, probably, of the same 
opinion with his reader, that the subject brought into — 
view is well worthy of a far more extensive discussion, 


Thompson, August 15, 1811. 


A DISSERTATION, Se. 


Tracine the church to its origin, we ascend to the 
days of paradise. Pursuing its history through the 
long tract of time down to the present, we shail find 
it, though uniform as to its grand object and design, 
various as to its external circumstances, and placed 
under difierent dispensations by its Divine Author. 
During the patriarchal ages from Adam to Moses, the 
church was very differently circumstanced, from what 
it was, after the introduction of the Mosaic economy. 
It was, also, very differently circumstanced, under the 
Mosaic economy, from what it now is, under the pre- 
sent more luminous dispensation of the Gospel. And 
in regard to many outward circumstances, it will, un- 
doubtedly, be very different in the Millennium, from 
what it now is. 

Divine institutions have been wisely adapted to the 
various circumstances, in which the church has been 
placed. And hence, though the true church of God 
is an unit ; one and indivisible; yet, as it respects its 
outward appearance, like the moon, to which it is com- 
pared in sacred scripture, it has had its different phases. 
It had its first quarter, previously to the calling of 
Abraham ; its second, from Abraham to Moses ; upon 
the introduction and establishment of the legal dispen- 
sation, the moon appeared full orbed ; from the days 
of Solomon, it began to wane; had its last quarter 
after the building of the second temple ; and changed 


C4, 


FG 


6 


at the time when Christ finished his ministry. Since 
then, the church is represented by a woman clothed 
with the sun, and the moon under her feet. She shines 
with a lustre so far superior to what she did under any 
former dispensation, she is more fitly compared to the 
light of the sun; and yet continuing to shine with 
unceasing lustre, so that in her latter day glory, the light 
of the-moon shall not only be as the light of the sun, 
but the light of the sun shall be sevenfold. From all 
which, two things are easily gathered. First, that the 
church for substance, that is, as it respects the holy 
seed, is permanent. But secondly, that its visible ap- 
pearance, and the circumstances in which it is placed, 
are greatly diversified, comporting with different times, 

As to that which is permanent, it isnot so difficult 
to be understood. It is held up to view, under all dis- 


pensations. It is not only frequently repeated; but . 


more and more enlarged upon, in proportion to the 
lapse of ‘time. Beside, the very nature of the subject 
and the analogy of things will afford some ground, for 
rational deductions and conclusions. But with regard 
to that which is only temporary, it is not to be at all 
wondered at, if many questions should arise, which 
are difficult of solution ; ‘especially, when so long a 
time has elapsed, as to exceed the memory of man, 
and the Holy Ghost has not seen fit to afford us an an- 
swer. Thus, that there wasa church in being from 
Adam to Abraham, is clearly eyident. Sacrifices 
were offered in faith. There were those, that called 
on the name of the Lord; walked with God; were 
styled the sons of God ; were in covenant with God ; 
received special marks of divine approbation; were 
subjects of the promises ; died in faith; and have ob- 
tained this testimony that they were righteous. But 
when we would inquire after their visibility as a church, 
and the particular boundary line, between them and 
the rest of the world, we are left much at a loss. 

Doubtless, they must have had some regulations, 
which, in the short account, which is given us of their 
time, are passed over in silence, as not being necessary 
to our instruction: while, on the other hand, those 


7 


things, which were of a more permanent nature, and 
of more general concernment, are particularly noticed. 
Of one thing, however, we may be assured, and it 
may be well here to remark and remember, that the 
relation between believing parents and their children, 
was the same then, that itever has beensince. Their 
authority over their children must have been the same. 
Their affection for them the same. Their obligation 
to instruct them in religion, according to what light 
they had, the same. ‘Their parental influence, their 
prayers, and, who will not add, the benefit of their 
prayers, precisely the same. Whatever was adapted 
merely to their peculiar circumstances ceased with 
their dispensation: but the promises, the faith and 
hope of God’s people, the observance of the sabbath, 
and every moral obligation, founded in the nature and 
fitness of things, continued. 

When God entered mto covenant with Abraham, 
promises were made to him, large and extensive, which 
being of a permanent nature, are easy to be understood. 
The token of the covenant, also, which God was plea- 
sed to give him, in the institution of circumcision, 
_ when viewed by itself, and disencumbered of reason- 
ings about the law, which took place four hundred and 
thirty years afterwards, is also plain enough to be un- 
derstood. ‘The token given is a token of God’s cove- 
nant with believers. In its application, the relation be- 
tween the believer and his household, is brought into 
view, together with all the important duties connected 
with it, though no new relation is formed, but what 
existed between believers and their households before. 
And the token of God’s covenant with Abraham is ap- 
plied to all his household, to impress the mind with the 
solemn consideration, that a man cannot be a believer, 
and in covenant with God, without paying aregard to 
the religious instruction of his household. . But would 
We inquire, particularly and minutely, concerning all 
the form and visibility of the church, under the Abra- 
hamie dispensation, by which I mean, from Abraham 
to Moses, we should find ourselves put to insuperable 
difficulties. We might travel from Luz to Padan- 


" 8 


Aram; we might visit the kingdom of Abimelech j 
we might go down into Egypt and lie among the pots; 
but we should return, neither covered with silver feath- 
ers, nor our wings with yellow gold. We should de- 
rive no profit, or advantage, from such a fruitless in- 
quiry. ‘That God did, from time to time, make com- 
munications to the patriarchs, we know. That he gave 
them all those directions which were necessary, to re= 
gulate their conduct, we must believe. But if he did, 
we must also believe, that many things were of a tem- 
porary use, and are passed in silence, 

In process of time, God saw fit to make an addi- 
tion of the law, given at mount Sinai. Thisalso had 
its uses. It was wisely adapted, no doubt, to the sit- 
uation in which the church was to be, from that time, 
till the advent of Christ. And the occasion and pro- 
priety of many of its institutions may be understood by 
us. We may easily discern, that the Sinai Covenant 
did not disannul the Covenant of grace ; but was de- 
signed, as an aid to prepare the way for its accomplish- 
ment. It is also plain to be seen, that there was much 
instruction, contained in the rites and forms of that 
dispensation, and that, though they are of no use, any 
longer to be observed, yet, they may still be of great 
use, by inquiring into their meaning. But the Sinai 
dispensation, likewise, will be found to have been 
adapted to its own peculiar time ; to have respect to 
circumstances long since forgotten ; and to explain all 
that is contained in it, may be a labor, to which no man 
at this day is adequate. Here, also, that which is per- 
manent is plain and easy to be understood ; while that 
which is local and temporary is, in many instances, — 
difficult to be explained. And, perhaps, there may be 
some things in the state of the church, even under the 
Sinai dispensation, as impossible for us to define, as 
to give an accurate statement of all the circumstances 
of the church, before the flood. 

Tn reasoning from ancient dispensations, hea the 
distinction ought ever to be kept in view, between 
such things as are permanent, and such things as are 
only temporary. Because some things are permanent, 


9 


the conclusion doth not follow, that all are. Neither, 
because some things are done away, doth it therefore 
follow, that all things, which took place under former 
dispensations, are abolished. Some, conceiving that 
the Sinai Covenant has answered its design and ceased, 
have unwarrantably inferred, that the Abrahamic Cov- 
enant has terminated with it. While others, conceiv- 
ing that they have clear demonstration of the perpetu- 
ity of the Abrahamic Covenant, have been ready to 
conclude, that they might draw similar inferences from 
the Covenant of Sinai. The consequence is, that both 
are partially right, and both are partially wrong. Each, 
with some degree of justice, censures the other ; each 
is equally inconsistent, and the dispute can never be 
settled, till this distinction is fairly stated. It will be 
the object, then, of the following Dissertation, to shew, 


I. That the Sinai Covenant has ceased, and that, 
consequently, no inferences can be drawn from that, to 
the present dispensation, which has succeeded it. 


Il. That the Abrahamic Covenant is perpetual, 
never has been abrogated, and that, consequently, in- 
ferences may be safely drawn from that to the present 
dispensation. 

I. The Sinai Covenant has ceased, and, consequent- 
ly, no inferences can be drawn from that, to the pre- 
sent dispensation, which has succeeded it. 


When it is said, that the Sinai Covenant has ceased, 
it is not to be understood, that every thing has ceased 
which co-existed with it. The moral law, which was 
written and engraven upon stone, though use was 
made of it inthe Covenant of Sinai, vet as it hada 
real existence, being written in the hearts of men be- 
fore, and being, in its nature, of perpetual obligation, 
still continued, after the Sinai Covenant was abroga- 
ted. The Covenant, which God made with Abraham, 
though it coexisted together with it, still continued, as 
will be presently shewn, when the Sinai Covenant had 


IG": 


ca 


ceased. ‘The spiritual church, also, had an existence 

at the same time with the Sinai Covenant; but the 

church of God has not ceased with it, however it co-. 
existed with it. And in short, every thing else, which 

was designed to be permanent, continued the same, 

after the abrogation of the Sinai Covenant, that it had 

been before. 

When it is said that the Sinai Covenant has ceased, 
it is not intended that the things have ceased which 
were typified by it. The Sinai Dispensation shadow- 
ed forth many gospel truths, which are now more clear- 
ly exhibited without a vail. The types bemg with- 
drawn did not abolish the things that were signified by 
the types ; but rather demonstrated the reality of their 
existence and their perpetuity. 

It is also premised, that in speaking of the Sinai 
Covenant, reference is had, not only to the transaction 
which took place at the mount, when this Covenant 
was promulgated in manner and form, but to whatever 
else took place, either previously, or subsequently, as 
preparatory to, or connected with it, being a part and 
parcel of ihe same temporary system, from the time 
that God took his people by the hand, to lead them out 
of Egypt, till the last item of the ancient temple wor- 
ship was’ set up and established. So that, in this 
view, not only the ark, the altar, and the priest, the 
Urim and the Thummimn, the bell and the pomegra- 
nate ; -but likewise the passover instituted in Egypt, 
and the brazen sea in the temple of Solomon, may all 
be considered as belonging to the same temporary dis- 
pensation. 

Understanding the dispensation of the Sinai Cove- 
nant in this large extent, as comprehending all that 
was thus connected with it, as a part of the same de- 
sign, we will now proceed, with brevity, to adduce the 
evidence in proof that this dispensation has ceased.— 
And, 


1. Aconsideration of the end and design of the Si- 
nai Dispensation, might lead us to the conclusion, that 
it could be only temporary. . 


ll 


One design of the Sinai Dispensation was, to pre- 
serve the church from falling into the idolatrous wor- 
ship practised by all the nations about them. On this 
ground only, it is well observed, by many respectable 
writers, that some of the laws of Moses can be accoun- 
ted for as being founded in reason, and worthy of their 
Divine Author. For this reason, it was prohibited to 
eat swine’s flesh ; to sceth a kid in its mother’s milk ; 
to wear a garment of linen and woollen; witha great 
variety of other positive precepts, which, in any other 
point of view, would appear very trivial, but highly 
important, as designed to keep them from idolatrous 
practices, by thus continually exhibiting an abhorrence 
and detestation of all such things as the Gentiles used 
in their worship. But if this was one design, when 


the Jewish nation had become so thoroughly cured of. 


idolatry, that they no longer had any propensity to 
image worship, and when there was no longer an oc- 
casion for the middle wall of partition to be kept up 
between Jews and Gentiles, we might readily conclude 
that such a dispensation as this would come to a close, 
because no longer needed. 
_ Another design of this Dispensation was, to shadow 
forth the character and offices of Christ; or, as the 
apostle expresses it, good thingsto come. Being of a 
typical nature, it served not only to confirm believers 
in their faith and assurance, that such a Saviour should 
eventually come, as, by divine institution, was thus 
represented in the type and shadow ; but alsd,desig- 


nate the person of a Saviour when ‘he should actu- ~ 


ally appear, and when it should be made manifest, 
that alf these numerous types did actually meet and 
were fulfilled in him as the antitype. Butif this Dis- 
pensation was designed to be a typical representation 
of Christ and his kingdom, then, when he who was the 
predicted antitype should come, and the events take 
place, which were shadowed forth and represented, it 
- might well be expected that the types which pointed 
forward to those events, would then be laid aside, as 
having accomplished their end. 

Another design of the Sinai Dispensation was, te 


12 


preserve the tribes and families of Israel, so distinct, 
that the genealogy of Christ might be known, and his 
person identified. God was pleased to designate the 
person of the Saviour, by promising that he should be 
of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, and of | 
the lineage of David. Indeed, there were so many 
particulars foretold concerning him, that it was impos- 
sible that they should all be fulfilled in any other. Now, 
in order that it might be known, that all these pre- 
dictions did meet aut were fulfilled in him, it was ne- 
cessary that his genealogy should be known. » It was 
necessary, then, that the tribes and families of Israel 
should be preserved so distinct, that every man’s gen- 
ealogy could be traced. And if so, it was necessary 
that some such regulations, as were comprehended i in 
the Sinai Dispensation, should be adopted. But when 
our Lord had actually come, and his person had been 
identified, that he was the very one of whom Moses 
and the prophets did write, it was no longer necessary, 
that such institutions should be continued for the sake 
of distinguishing genealogies ; for it was no matter 
after this, how soon they might be confounded and 
lost. 

Another design’of the Sinai Dispensation was, to 
exhibit to the world, a most striking example of hu- 
man depravity, by proving the children of Israel, and 
showing what was in their hearts. Nothing is more 
common to men, than to form a mistaken opinion of 
their own hearts. Neither is there any mistake more 
needful to be corrected. Accordingly, in the govern- 
ment of this world,God hath these two objects especially 
in view ; in the first place, to show the depravity of man ; 
and in the second place, to display the riches of his grace 
in the salvation of sinners. For this reason, God doth ° 
sometimes bestow great temporal prosperity upon im- 
penitent sinners ; to show what requital they will make 
for his goodness. For the same reason, he sends the 
word of the gospel to them that never will receive it ; 
to show their obstinacy in rejecting it, and the more to 
illustrate his justice in their condemnation. For this 
reason he continued the lives of men to so great a 


13 


length before the deluge, to show what violence would 
be the consequence, and that if sinners were to live 


_ long enough, still retaining their native depravity, the 


world would not be able to bearthem. © And for the 
same reason among others, God was pleased to enter 
into that peculiar Covenant, which he made with Israel 
at Mount Sinai. This appears from Deut. viii. 1, 2. 
«© All the commandments, which I command thee this 
day, shall ye observe to do, that ye may live and mul- 
tiply, and go in and possess the land, which the Lord 
sware unto your fathers. And thou shalt remember all 
the way, which the Lord thy God led thee these forty 
years in the wilderness, to humble thee and to prove 
thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou 
wouldest keep his commandments or no.” See also 
Exodus xv. 25, 26. ‘‘ ‘There (that is at Marah) he 
made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he 
proved them, and said, if thou wilt diligently hearken 
to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that 
which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his 
commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put 
none of these diseases. upon thee, which I have bro’t 
upon the Egyptians : for Iam the Lord that healeth 


“thee.” ‘The same statement may be found in various 


other parts.of Moses’ Law, as well as of the prophets. 

To have correct views, however, of this subject, it 
will be necessary to call to mind the nature of the bles- 
sings promised in this Covenant, which God made with 
the whole Israelitish nation, in order to prove them, 
and to show what was in their hearts. And here it 
will at once appear, that these blessings were all of 
a temporal nature. It was promised that they should 
have the possession of the land of Canaan ; that they 
should have peace and plenty in all their borders ; that 
they should be free from pestilence and wasting disea- 


ses; that they should become numerous and power- 


ful; be victorious over all their enemies; and in short, 


_ attain to the highest degree of national prosperity and 


glory. On the other hand, temporal evils and national 
calamities were the only ones threatened in this Cov- 


_ enant, in case of disobedience. Of this statement, the 


14 


- 


general scope of the Pentateuch rises in proof: but 
if a particular reference be.requested, the reader will 
please to consult the 26th chapter of Leviticus, togeth- 
er with some of the last chapters in Deuteronomy, and 
the declaration of the prophet Isaiah will be found to 
be a concise, though comprehensive comment upon 
the whole : “ If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall 
eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, 
ye shall be devoured with the sword ; for the mouth 
of the Lord hath spoken it.” If in any instance, we 
find promises and threatnings of another kind in the 
Old Testament scriptures, they are to be referred to 
some other covenant, rather than to. the Sinai Cove- 
nant, considered in a distinct view by itself.* 

To prove the depravity of the human heart, then, 
God was pleased to enter into a peculiar Covenant 
with the whole house of Israel; and to promise them, 
under condition of obedience, every temporal blessing ; 
and te threaten them, in case of disobedience, with 
every temporal calamity. Under such circumstances, 
had not the experiment been actually made, would not 
men, in general, have been ready to conclude, that 
now they certainly would obey. ‘That men should not 
be influenced by future, and eternal rewards, some, 
however unjustly, might have said, is not so strange. 
The rewards of eternity are far distant, and out of 
sight. These at the best are only appreherided by 
faith. But things temporal are already present with 


* It is not to be denied, that many gracious declarations and promises 
are not only interspersed through the Old Testament, buc are, likewise, 
sometimes found in the book of Moses’ Law. There will be no diffi- 
culty in this, however, if we can only keep in remembrance, that the 
Abrahamic Covenantisstill speaking ; and that the children of this Coven- 
ant were, at the same time, under obligation to keep the Covenant of 
Sinai. If believers were, at that time, under obligation to keep the Sinai 
Covenant, the same as others, then, their sincere regard tothe requisitions 
of that Covenant, might be brought into view, as evidence of their faith, and 
- of their consequent title to all the blessings of the Covenant es Grace ; 

(though these blessings were not conferred upon the Ko i the Sinai 
Covenant ;) just as obedience to all the commands of God, under the Gos- 
pel Dispensation, is still brought into view as evidence of faith, and the 
promise of eternal life is made to such as have the spirit of obedience ; 
though their justification is not by the works of the law, but freely by 

God’s grace through the redemption there is in Christ Jesus, 


15 
us. ‘Their value is well known from experience. We 
feel our present need of them. And, therefore, if 
temporal rewards were to be promised in consequence 
of obedience, they would certainly prevail with men 
to practise true religion. But now, says Jehovah, I 
will put this matter also to the test. Accordingly, he 
enters into covenant with Israel asa nation, and he 
tells them, if they will obey his voice, and keep all 
his statutes, he will confer upon them every temporal 
blessing ; but if they will not observe his statutes to 
do them, he will inflict upon them every temporal evil > 
and he gives them many unquestionable demonstra- 
- tions of his truth, in the accomplishment, both of the 
promise and the threatning. But what is the result ? 
Do temporal rewards inspire them with the love of 
God, or influence them to live a virtuous life 2? Not at 
all. Israel, of all nations the most favored of the 
Lord, for whose conviction so many wonders had been 
wrought, and to whom so many blessings were pro- 
mised, upon condition of their fidelity; are of all na- 
tions the most hard hearted, stiffnecked and rebellious. 
No sooner were they delivered from one judgment, 
than they again did evil in the sight of the Lord, so 
that it became necessary for another to be inflicted 
upon them: whereby they made it manifest, that 
they had rather indulge themselves in such vices as 
_ were practised in the temples of Baal and of Chemosh, 
to the hazard of losing all their worldly prosperity, 
than to live a sober life, in the service of God, though 
_ with the certain prospect of having the uninterrupted 
possession of a land flowing with milk and honey. 
_ And thus:they continued, as a nation, waxing worse 
and worse, excepting only the spiritual seed who were 
_ comprehended in another Covenant, until, at last, they 
_ were miserably destroyed, and scattered over the face 
_ of the earth, agreeably to the tenor of the threatning. 
| The experiment, then, proves this ; that such is the 
_ depravity of the human heart, that no temporal, any 
_ more than eternal, rewards will.induce men to live a 
| life of obedience, unless the law of God be written in 
their hearts, agreeably to what is stipulated and pro- 


16 


mised in the Covenant of Grace. But when this ex- 
periment had been fairly tried, would it be reasonable 

that it should still be continued, or repeated ? When 
the world had been once: destroyed with the flood, it 

was not necessary that God should repeat it again, 

either to show his abhorrence of human wickedness, 
or what improvement mankind would be disposed to © 
make of such an awful judgment ; and accordingly, he 

declares, that he would not do the like again, adding 

as areason, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil 

Jrom his youth. If there must be a flood every time 

the heart of man is evil, there will be no end to delu- 

ges. Soin this case, God having fairly shown the ob- ° 
stinate depravity of the human heart, in proving the’ 
Jewish nation, with the Sinai Covenant, has no occa- 

‘sion either to continue, or to repeat such an experi- 

ment, in proof of such a fact, and of course, so far as 

this was an object of that ancient dispensation, it 

might rationally be expected to come to its end and 

cease. 

May it not also be worth our while to add, that 
another design of the Sinai Dispensation was, to pro- - 
vide a cradle, where the church of God might be nur- 
sed, during its infantile state ? While the church con- 
sisted only of a few families, or scattered: individuals, 
as in the days of Abraham, perhaps they would meet 
with no great molestation, in uniting together, and in 
worshipping God according to their own sense of duty 
and propriety. For asscivil government was at that 
time patriarchal, the forces of a whole kingdom, as it 
was called, yea, of four or five of them, were not able 
to stand their ground against such a man as Abraham, 
with only 318 of his trained servants, born in his own 
house. But when more powerful and extensive king- 
doms were established, still retaining their opposition 
‘to the worship of the true God ; and when the church 
was coming forward into notice the farther it advanced, 

_ isit atall likely that they could have found an asylum 
any where upon the face of the whole earth, had not 
God seen fit to take some extraordinary measures to 
provide one for them ? Accordingly, when the time 


17 


had arrived that it became necessary, God was plea- 
sed to lift up his hand in the sight of the nations ; to 
bring Israel out of Egypt ; to place them under the 
Sinai Dispensation ; and,’ in this way to provide an~ 
asylum for his church, or, as we may say, a cradle, 
where it might be nursed during its minority, ull 
the proper time should come for it to be extended to 
the Gentile nations, and when God might see fit to in- 
terpose, in some other way, for its preservation. God 
can preserve hischurch, in what way he pleases: butthis 
was the way which, at that time, he actually adopted. 
But if this was one object of that ancient Dispensa- 
tion, during the church’s minority ; then, from the na- 
ture of the case, we should not be led to conclude, 
that any such measure would be necessary, after the 
church had come to its maturity, and when all the cir- 
cumstances, which at first rendered it expedient, were 
changed. 

How many objects might be answered by the Sinai 
Covenant, as said above, we may not be able to state. 
Weare sure that these, which we have thus lightly 
glanced upon, are some of the most prominent, and, 
itis thought, some of the most important. But so 
far as we are able to discern the reasons of the Sinai 
Covenant, being first introduced, all these same rea- 
sons will, naturally, lead us to the conclusion, that 
the Dispensation of such a covenant would, probably, 
soon terminate. We will now proceed to show, 


2. That it is easy to be ascertained, from the New 
Testament, that the Sinai Covenant has ceased in 
fact. 

Intimations, that it would cease upon the introduc- 


tion of the new Dispensation, were given by Christ 


: 


himself. In conversation with the woman of Samaria, 
he says : “* Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, 
when we shall, neither in this mountain, nor yet at Je- 


_rusalem, worship the Father ;” evidently carrying the 


idea, that the time was about to commence, when the 
worship of God should no longer be restricted to Je- 
€ 


18 


rusulem, in the manner it had been; but that he might 
be wor shipped, ¥ all other places, with equal accep- 
tance, provided he was worshipped inspirit and in truth. 
3utit is well known, that all the rites and institutions 
of the Sinai Dispensation were so, intimately connect- 
ted with the place, which God had:chosen, to: put his 
name there, that when the law, respecting the locality 
of his worship, was nopaales the whole of that Dis- 
pensation, et ing bicuded with it, must go into desue- 
tude of cour ris 
But eke atl Christ foretold that the hour would 
come, when this Dispensation would be abolished ; yet 
how long a time would clapse before this event would 
take place, itis not recollected, that he any where in- 
formed his: disciples, previously tovhis resurrection. 
He does not say, in, this passage, that the hour had 
come already : but he prophesies, that it would come. 
But atter he had risen from the dead ; after his apos- 
iles had been endowed with power from on high, and 
had received such a measure of his infallible Spirit, 
as led them intoall necessary truth, and qualified them 
to go forth and evangelize the nations; we find them 
very soon declaring the Sinai Covenant to be actually 
abolished. . The question was publicly decided, by the 
board of the Apostles, assembled with the chicas and 
brethren, as recorded in the 15th chapterof Aetsiaalt 
appears, that after an accession of Gentile. converts to 
the church, some of the sect of the Pharisees, who 
believed, but who were still greatly attached to their 
ancient customs, alleged it to be necessary that they 
sbould be circumcised, and .keep the law of Moses. 
\Vhereupon, the question being laid before the apos- 
tolic council, they came to. the following result, ‘com- 
musicated in a letter to the Gentile brethren : ‘‘ For- 
usmuch as we have heard,,that certaimswhich went 
out drem.us have troubled you with; words, subverting 
your souls, saying, ye must-be cinetiit , and keep 
the law ;, to whom we gave no such commandment: 
it seemed good unto.us, being assembled with one 
accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our belov- 


19 


ed Barnabas and Paul ; men that have hazarded their 
lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We 
have sent, therefore, Judas and Si ilas, ' who shall also. 
tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed 
good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no 
greater burden than hese necessary things ; that ye 
arene from meats offered to idols, ‘and from blood, 
and from things strangted, and from fornication : from 
which, if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare 
ye well.” From which result it appears, that the ques- 
tion, was decided fully in the negative, that it was in- 
cumbent upon Christians, under the Gospel Dispen- 
sation, neither to observe the antiquated rite of circum- 
cision, nor to attend upon any of those thines, which 
were peculiar to Moses’ Law. ‘The Sinai Dispensa- 
tion, then, according to our Lord’s prediction, and by 
persons duly authorize@ by him, and acting in his nameé 
was publicly declared to be at an end. 

That the Sinai Covenant 1s abrogated, may also be 
clearly ascertained by consulting the Fpistle to the 
Galatians, 5th chapter ; one the Aposth Ze in ‘aii 
allegory, represents ihe old and the new Cove: t, by 
the two sons of Abraham, which he had, the one iby a 


SAAR 


bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. ‘“ Which 


things” says he, “ are an allegory : for these are the two 


7 


covenants ; the: one from mount Sinci, which @endereth 
tobondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount 8 


‘nai in Arabia, and answereth to Jernsa vem, which now 
is, and is in bondage with her children. But Tervein 


which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all. 
For it is ‘written, rejoice thou barren that bearest not ; 
break forth and cry thou that travailest not, for the des- 
olate hath many more children than she that hath a 

husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the 
children of promise. But as then, he that was born 
after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the 
Spirit, even soit is now. Nevertheless, what saith the 
scriptures ? Cast out the bond-woman and her son: 
for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with 
the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we are 


20 : 


not children of the bond-woman, but of the free.”” In 
this allegory, much important instruction is contained; 
but the following particulars, as subservient to our 
present purpose, are obvious. First, that the Cove- 
nant, represented by the bond-woman, is the Sinai 
Covenant. ‘ For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia.” 
Secondly, that this bond-woman and her somwere a 
fit representation, of the state and condition of the 
Jews in the days of the Apostle, who were still 
grounding their hopes upon a legal covenant.—* This 
Agar answereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in 
bondage with her children.” ‘Thirdly, that the true 
spiritual church of God, which is comprehended in 
the Covenant of Grace, and born from above, is free 
from this bondage. And fourthly, that the Sinai 
Covenant, which is represented by the bond-woman, 
is abolished. ‘‘ Cast out the bond-woman and her 
‘son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir 
with the son of the free woman.””. The apostle, then, 
evidently treats the Sinai Covenant, according to the 
result of the apostolic council; and accordingly, 
when he observed the churches of Galatia, still tena- 
ciously adhering to its obsolete rites and institutions, 
he expresses his anxious fears concerning them. 
*¢ But now, after that ye have known God, or rather, 
are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and 
beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be 
in bondage. Ye observe days, and months, anditimes, 
and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed 
upon you labor in vain.” 

In his 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, 3d chapter, he 
also brings these two Covenants into view, and dis- 
tinguishes them by the appellations of new and old. 
‘* Who also hath made us able ministers of the new 
testament.”? Now a new covenant, which the word 
testament signifies, necessarily implies its correlate, 
or an old covenant, with which it is compared. In 
the sequel, he speaks of the old Covenant, asa min- 
istration of death: of the new Covenant, as the minis- 
tration of the Spirit. Of the old Covenant, as being 


* 


21 


abolished : of the new Covenant, as still remaining. 
*« For if that which is done away was glorious, much 
more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing theii 
that we have such hope, we use great plainness of 
speech ; and not as Moses, which puta vail over his 
face, that the children of Isracl could not  stedfastly 
look to the end of that which is abolished : but their 
minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the 
same vail untaken away, in the reading of the old tes- 
tament, which vail is done away in Christ. . But even 
unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon 
their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the 
Lord, the vail shall be taken away.”? From these ex- 
pressions, itis evident; First, that the Sinai Dis- 
pensation, or the old Covenant, was a Covenant which 
never could give /ife. It was the ministration of 
death. Secondly, that this Covenant hath actually 
been abolished. ‘Thirdly, that the Children of Israel 
having a vail upon their hearts cannot look to the end 
of that which is abolished ; but are still seeking to 
justify themselves by that old, abrogated Covenant. 

But, fourthly, when they shall turn to the Lord, their 
blindness will be removed, so that grounding their 
hope ' upon a better foundation than the Sinai Cove- 
nant, they will find themselves at liberty from that min- 
istration of death. ,For, ‘‘ where the Spirit of the 
Lord is, there is liberty.” 

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, if he be 
Paul, is still consistent with himself: or if he be Apol- 
los, he is consentaneous. In the course of the Epistle, 
the writer labors abundantly to prove that the types of 
the former Dispensation were fulfilled in Christ, as the 
antjtype : which point, if established, will also proye 
that these types have answered the end for which they 
were designed, and have now ceased. Not only so, 
but he distinguishes the Covenant of Grace, from that 
of Sinai, by calling the former, of which Jesus is the 
surety, a better Covenant. He also quotes a passage 
from the prophecy of Jeremiah, in which the Sinai 
_ Covenant is considered as an o/d Covenant, and the 


t 


XD 


2 


i 


Covenant of Grace, which God will make with the 
house of Israel, is called a zew Covenant. And then 
he proceeds to make the following remark ; ** Th that 
he saith a new Covenant, he hath made the first old. 
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to 
vanish away.” It appears then, from the whole drift 
of his argument, that he considered the Sinai Dispen- 
sation as having already decayed, waxed old, and van- 
ished. 

Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, speaks of 
Christ, as having broken down the middle wall of par- 
tition, between Jews and Gentiles: and then, proceed- 
ing to specify what he did in breaking down this mid- 
dle wall, he says: ‘* Having abolished in his flesh the — 
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in or- 
dinances ; for to make in himself of twain, one newman 
so making peace.” In his E;pistleto the Colossians, he 
is equally express, where he speaks of Christ’s blotting 
out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, 
which was contrary to us, and his taking it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross: adding, ‘* Let no man, 
therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect 
of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath 
days ; which are a shadow of things to come, but the 
body is of Christ.” And again, “ If ye be dead with 
Christ, from the rudiments of the world, why as though 
living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances ; 
(touch not, taste not, handle not; whichall are to perish 
with the using,) after the commandments and doc- 
trines of men 2?” From which we gather, first, that. 
the ordinances of the ancient Dispensation, were 
all blotted out by the death of Christ. And, secondly, 
that since they are obliterated, for any person to attend - 
upon them, is as much will worship, and following the 
commandments of men, as. it would be to set upor 
follow any other invention, for which there never had. 
been a divine warrant. But it will not be deemed ne- 
cessary to multiply quotations, in proof of so plaina: 
point. If it was the declaration of Christ, that this 
Dispensation should cease; if it was the declaration of ~ 


. 


23 


the apostles, that it actually Aas ceased ; if it be evi- 
dent that the Sinai Covenant is the bond-woman, that - 
was ejected ; the ministration of death that was adol- 
ished ; the old Covenant that vanished away ; and the~ 
hand-writing of ordinances which was blotted out ; : 
surely, this must be abundantly sufficient to convince 
any one that the Sinaj Covenant is really abrogated. 
But if the Sinai Covenant has really answered its de- 
sign and ceased, with what propriety can any inferences 
be drawn from that Dispensation, in regard to positive 
duties incumbent upon us, who are neither placed un- 
der it, nor under one, that in any wise reseniblés it ? 
Analogical reasoning is allowed to be good, where any 
analogy exists. But. surely, it must be a very unsatis- 
factory deduction, to draw an analegical- mference from 
things that are wholly dissimilar. If having“ found 
from experience, that a creature of a particular con- 
struction, ‘and having fins and scales, can live in water 
as its proper element, I should thence infer, that anoth- 
er creature of similar construction might live in water 
too ; the inference would be a good one, being found- 
ed in realanalogy. But were I to infer from this, that 
an animal, whose form is wholly different, and which 
has wings and feathers, might live'in water, the infer- 
ence would not be received as a good one, because 
there is no analogy in the case. If a medicine, arsen- 
ic for instance, were to be found a gocd and salutary 
prescription, in some particalar disease, and I should 
thence infer, that it w oni also be's Pap ee for another 
patient, of a similar constitution, underthe same disease, 
and at the same stage of it, the inference would be just. 
But were [ Merce to riers that therefore, arsenic 
would be a good prescription in cases, where all the 
circumstances were different, I should, doubtless, be 
impeached of quackery, by ail the discerning part of the 
faculty. In the moral field too, reasoning from analogy 
js allowed to be good. If a person charged with'some 
“supposed crime is acquitted in Court, when the facts 
upon which the charge is founded, are clearly proved ; 
_ the integrity of the Judge being admitted, it would be. 


24 


a just analogical inference, to conclude, ‘1 
person would also be acquitted, whéf-aiiih@ll the en on 
comitant circumsiances, is under a Sn 
Or if a person being a denizen of 3 pate xia 
of course subject to such laws and as are 
common to aii its inhabitants, I should t — 
that another persen who is also a denizen, is'subject to — 
the same laws, the inference would be just)” But if, | 
because a person born and residing in England is a — 
subject of George Rex, I should thence infer, that a 
citizen of the United State*owes the same 

to his royal Majesty, my c6nclusion would not be g 
mitted, as being contained in the premises. A si | 
remark may be made upon every state and condition — 
in human life. Every situation is attended with its — 
peculiar circumstances, which involve peculiar obliga- 
tions incumbent on none, but such as are in the same 
condition. Let these remarks, then be applied to the — 
Sinai Covenant. It appears to pete oe, wand 
Dispensation, designed for a particular use, and St 

to that period of time, which intervened betw 
Exodus from Egypt, and the resurrection i 
That all such, as lived in the time of it, 2 who were 
placed under it, were obligated to atter io its require- 
ments, isa just inference. But to infer, th at fn 


are placed under a new dispensation, ‘not ae 
different, but contrasted with 7, are t under ¢ 
St See ree remer 


pected, taba + spel regard wo thas nose th 
ces to be drawn, then, must be cochas th 
nai Covenant promised only 


25 


_ only ones promised to believers in the Covenant of 


Grace. Temporal evils were the only ones threatened 
by the Sinai Covenant, im case of disobedience ; 
therefore, temporal evils are the only ones that are_ 
now threatened to the impenitent. The Sinai Covenant 
required offerings, and burnt offerings for sin ; there- 
fore, it is still the duty of Christians, to make a typic- 
al atonement for their sins, with the blood of bulls and 
ts. The Sinai Covenant made it necessary to at- 


tend upon the public worship of God, at one particular 


place which God had chosen ; therefore, it is still the 
duty of God’s people to go to Jerusalem to worship. 
The Sinai Covenant required the observance of days, 
and months, and times, and years; therefore, it is still 
the duty of Christians to blow up the trumpet in the 
new moon, and to observe the day of atonement, the 
feast of tabernacles, and the year of Jubilee. Indeed if 
there be any such thing as reasoning analogically from 
the Sinai Dispensation to the present, we must still have 
our ark, our altar, and our high priest, our ephod and our 
breastplate, our candlestick and our shew bread, and in 
fine, all the rites and forms of the ancient temple wor- 


ship. For all these things were not only unquestion- 


ably comprehended in the Sinai Covenant, but were 
essential to it. I am sensible, that no person who pre- 
tends to reason from the Sinai Dispensation, will ven- 
ture to draw all these conclusions. But if we reason 
from the Sinaitic Dispensation at all; why not draw 
our inference from those things in which that Dispen- 
sation did especially consist ? Or if we step aside from 


| the peculiarities of that Covenant, however just our 


inferences may be, which are derived from another 
source ; why should we profess to derive them from 
the Sinai Covenant, when they are really and truly de- 
rived from something else, which coexisted with it ? 
The fact is, the Sinai Covenant, though designed for a 


_ wise purpose, and of great use in the time of it, is now 


abolished. We may gain much profitable instruction, 

by looking into its meaning, and seeing its accomplish- 

ment ; but being a thing peculiar to its own day, it is 
D 


26 


no guide to the Christian church in regard to any pos- 
itive duty, that is now to be obseage aS that the 
remark, which the Apostle makes in another instance, 
and upon a more extensive subject, may apply with 
equal force in the present case : “* ‘The woman which 
hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband 
so long as he liveth, but if the husband be dead, she is 
loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if while 
her husband liveth she be married to another man, she 
shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be 
dead, she is free from that law ; so that she is no adut- 
teress, though she be married to another man.” But ' 
the Sinai Covenant is dead. It is abolished. This 
bond-woman has been cast out. The children of the 
free-woman owe her nokind of subjection. ‘* Jerusa- 
tem which is above is free.” 

But perhaps some will say, though we readily grant, 
that the Sinai Dispensation has ceased ; and that con- 
sequently no inferences can be drawn from that to the 
present Dispensation ; yet may we not reason analo- 
gically from the church while placed under it? In or- 
der to answer this question, it will only be necessary 
to define what we mean by the church, which was pla- 
ced under that dispensation. Do we mean the spiritu- 
al seed which are comprehended in the Covenant of 
Grace ? From the church in this sense, it isa clear 
case, that we may draw inferences, concerning believ- 
ers, under any other dispensation : for, they are all 
alike justified by faith, and are subjects of the same 
promises. But if we mean by the church the visible 
‘orm, which it received, while placed under the Sinai 
Dispensation ; it is plain that in that case, to reason 
from the visibility of the church, would be the same 
thing as to reason from the Sinai Dispensation, which 
gave it, for a time, such a visible form and compilex- 
ion, aS it never had before, nor ever will have again. 
‘Vhe church under the Sinai Dispensation observed all 
ihose rites and forms, which were comprehended in 
it. ‘The church under the Sinai Dispensation had a 
form of government, peculiar to that Dispensation, 


27 


and which no man can imagine, to have been adapted 
to the state of the church, in any other period. ‘The 
yisibility of the church was, also, greatly affected, by 
being united with the whole Jewish nation, when God ~ 
gave them the Sinai Covenant, to prove them, and to 
show what was in their hearts. From the visibility of 
the church, then, as a collective body, while placed un- 
der the Sinai Dispensation, no inferences can be drawn 
in regard to the form or visibility of the church, after 
that Dispensation was ended. For to reason from the 
visibility of the church in this way, would be the 
same, as to reason from the Sinai Dispensation itself, 
which has already been exploded. But if on the oth- 
er hand we mean by the church, such as are the true 
spiritual seed, and who are heirs according to the prom- 
ise ; then, in drawing inferences from the church in 
this sense, we have no reference to the Sinai Covenant 
at all, but to the covenant which God made with Abra- 
ham, four hundred and thirty years before, and which 
the Sinai Covenant, though added to it for a special 
purpose, did not interrupt. Speaking of the Sinai 
Covenant, then, in a distinct view by itself, unblended 
with any thing else, that was cotemporary with it; we 
shall do the best to make short work of it and say, that 
no inference can with propriety be drawn to the present 
Dispensation of the Gospel, either from the Sinai Coy- 
enant, or from the peculiar visibility of the church 
while placed under it. 

Having thus, with brevity, dispatched what peeiiitd 
necessary to be observed, concerning the peculiar Coy- 
enant of Sinai, the second proposition is now before us: 


IJ. That the Abrahamic Covenant is perpetual, nev- 
et has been abrogated, and consequently inferences may 
be safely drawn from that; to the present Dispensation. 


1. That the Abrahamic Covenant is perpetual, may 
reasonably be inferred, from its being the Covenant of 
Grace. By the term Covenant of Grace, I mean, 
what Divines have generally meant ; a covenant which 


28 


God enters into with believers, in which eternal life 

is promised to them in connexion with their faith. It. 

may indeed be considered, as a fruit, or consequence, 

of the Covenant of Redemption ; but yet, iS really dis- 

tinguishable from it, in various respects. The Cove- 

nant of Redemption was made in eternity : the Cove- 

nant of Grace in time. ‘The Covenant of Redemp- 

tion is between the Father and the Son : the Covenant 

of Grace between God and believers. ‘The Covenant 

of Redemption had mutual conditions to be perform- 

ed, and a reward was promised, as the just desert of 
services previously rendered: In the Covenant of 
Grace, God himself engages to perform all the condi- 
tions, and the blessings bestowed are wholly unmeri- 

ted by them, who are the subjects of them. How- 

ever, therefore, the Covenant of Grace may result 
from the Covenant of Redemption, as a fruit, or con- 
sequence of it; yet, it is conceived, that, strictly 
speaking, there is no propriety in considering them, 
as being one and the same Covenant. But whether 
the name, which is given to it, be acceptable or not; 
yet the thing, which is intended by it, it is presumed, 
will readily be admitted ; that God doth enter into 
Covenant with believers ; and that in this Covenant, 
he promises them eternal life, in connexion with their 
faith. He that believeth shall be saved. ‘That im this 
sense, the Covenant, which God made with Abraham, 
was the Covenant of Grace, will readily appear, if we 
will only consider, for a moment, the scriptural ac- 
count of the manner, in which this Covenant was en- 
tered into, and the blessings, which were promised in — 
it. How did Abraham enter into covenant with God ? 
Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him 
for righteousness, What did Abraham believe? He 
believed in the promised Saviour. God promised, 
that, in his seed, all the families of the earth should 
be blessed, and he believed it. He saw Christ’s day 
and was glad. He believed on him that justifieth the — 
ungodly. And what was the consequence ? Though 
he could not be justified by works, for he had nothing 


29 


whereof to glory ; yet, his faith was counted to him 
for righteousness. And of course, all the promises, 
however great and precious, which are made to be- 
lievers in Christ, or to them that are justified through ~ 
him, are made to Abraham. See Gal. iii. 16. ‘“ Now, 
to Abraham, and his seed, were the promises made. 
He saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, 
and to thy seed, which is Christ.” ‘The covenant, 
then, which God made with Abraham, was a cove- 
nant of grace. And unless it can be made to appear, 
that there are more mediators, between God and man, 
than the promised seed of Abraham ; that there are 
other ways of being justified, beside believing on him 
that justifieth the ungodly ; and that there are other 
blessings, that were not promised to Abraham, and to 
his seed, which is Christ; neither of which will be 
pretended by any who believe the Scriptures ; it will 
follow that the covenant, which God made with Abra- 
ham may, with propriety, be denominated the Cove- 
nant of Grace, as being that, which is common to all 
believers : and if common to all believers, then, from 
its very nature, we should be led to conceive of it, as 
being perpetual. 


2. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant 
might also be inferred, from its being styled everlas- 
ting. See Gen. xvii. 13. ‘¢ And my covenant shall. 
be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” A cov- 
enant in the flesh is, evidently, a figure of speech, 

taken from the rite of circumcision, which was, at 
that time, a token of the covenant. Stripped of all 
figure, then, the meaning of the passage is, evident- 
ly, this, that the rite of circumcision was the token 
of a covenant, that should be everlasting. Now 
‘though it is well known, that the word, everlasting, 
-Mnay have a limited sense ; may signify, either a lon- 
ger, or shorter duration ; yet, itis equally well known, 
that it expresses a duration, in all cases, commensu- 
“rate with the existence of the subject. When applied 
to God, who is styled the everlasting Father, it can 


30 | 


mean nothing less than absolute eternity. When ap- 
plied to the hills, it must mean, at least, a duration, as 
long as the earth continues in its present form. When 
applied to the Levitical priesthood, it must mean a du-— 
ration, as long, as that dispensation continued, with 
which such a priesthood was connected. But in all 
cases, it implies a duration commensurate with the 
subject. Now, in the instance before us, the subject. 
isa Covenant, which God enters into with Abraham, | 
as a believer, and as a sample of that Covenant, which > 
he would afterward make with others, who, m the ex- 
ercise of the same faith, should walk in his steps. 
When, therefore, God promises to be the God of 
him, anc of his seed, throughout all their generations fa 
gives him a token of the Covenant inthe flesh; and 
declares the Covenant to be everlasting ; surely the 
expression can purport nothing less, than that this 
Covenant should continue, so long as there are any 
such persons, as are children of Abraham by faith : 
that is, so long as there are any believers in Christ ; 
and, consequently, that it must be perpetual. a5) 
3. The Abrahamic Covenant included not only 
some of his natural descendants, but hkewise believ- 
ers of Gentile extract. ‘That the seed of Abraham > 
were included in the Covenant together with himself, is - 
clear and express. Gen. xvil. 7. ‘“{And I will establish 
my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
thee, in their generations, for an Everlasting Covenant; 
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.”— 
But who are Abraham’s seed in the sense of the prom- 
ise ? Are we to understand all his natural posterity 2 
Or some of his natural posterity only ? Or a part of 
his natural posterity, together with others who might 
be united with them, in the same Covenant ? The first, 
that all his natural posterity are intended, 1s wholly in- 
admissible. For with regard to this seed, God doth 
expressly stipulate. and engage, that he will be their - 
God. ‘The same promise, which is contained in the — 
Covenant of Grace ; Iwill be their God and they shall 
be my people. A promise, which carries with it every 


: $l 


blessing, even eternal life. All the natural seed of 

\braham, then, cannot be’considered, as the subjects 
of this promise, unless they are all subjects of the 
ganctifying grace of God, and heirs of eternal life. 
But this does not appear to be the fact. On the con- 
trary, many of the natural descendants of Abraham 
are expressly rejected ; aid in some instances, God 
says to a great number of that rebellious race, Ye are 
not my people, and I will not be your God. And will 
it not at once occur, that the generation, which was 
cotemporary with Christ, excepting only a remnant, 
according to the election of grace, notwithstanding 
they were naturally descended from Abraham, were 
given over to hardness of heart, and blindness of mind ? 
And is it not also added, that wrath has come upon 
them to the uttermost ? Surcly, if any people on earth 
were ever reprobated of God, these may be consider- 
ed, as sustaining that character. All the natural seed » 
of Abraham, then, are not to be considered as chil- 
dren of the promise. Or, as the Apostle expresses it, 
«¢ All are not Israel, that are of Israel.” 

Are we to understand, then, by the seed, a part of 
Abraham’s natural posterity, and them only ? That a 
part of his natural posterity were intended, is beyond 
all question. God did repeatedly renew and confirm 
the same Covenant with Isaac and Jacob, which he had 
previously made with Abraham himself. It would be 
endless to enumerate the long list of the faithful, that 
might be selected from the natural descendants of 
Abraham, whose names are left on record, and who 
have obtained this testimony from God, that they were 
righteous. “ The time would fail me to tell of Ged- 
eon, and of Barak, and of Sampson, and of Jephthae ; 
of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets.” In 
times of revival there might be great multitudes. As 
m the days of Joshua, it is testified of the congrega- 
tion of Israel, in general, that they served the Lord, 
all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders, 
hat overlived Joshua. And in times of greatest 
eclension, there were thousands that had not bowed 


$2 on 
the knee to Baal, and a holy seed, that was declared to 
be the substance ; ; on account of which, the nation 
was preserved from becoming totally extinct. _W. 
also gather from the testimony ‘of an inspired Apostle, 
that God hath not utterly cast away all his people, of 
the natural descendants of Abraham ; but that he still 
reserves to himself a remnant, according to the election 
of grace. And we are still further informed, not only 
by this same inspired Apostle, but by the concurrent 
declarations of most of the Old Testament prophets, 
that this singular race of people is still preserved, to 
act a very distinguished part, in the church of God in 
the last days. ‘They have had their diminution ; and 
they shall also have their fulness: when God will make 
a new Covenant with them, not such an one as he made 
with their fathers, when he took them by the hand, to 
lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they con- 
tinued not in his Covenant, and he regarded them not: 
but he will put his laws into their minds, and write them. 
in their hearts, and will be to them a God, and they 
shall be to him a people. It is manifest , then, that there 
isa continued succession of the natural descendants 
of Abraham, who are the Covenant seed, and to whom | 
the promise has a primary respect. 

But though the promise may have a primary respect 
to many of the natural seed ; yet, it is not tobe under- 
stood as having a respect to them, exclusively. In. 
one instance God direets him to look toward io 

a 


and to tell the stars, if he were able to number them. 
And he said unto him so shall thy seed be. Gen. xv. 5 

In another place he tells him, ‘* Neither shall thy name 
any more be called Abram; but thy name shall be 
Abraham: for a father of many nations have I made 
thee.” Gen. xvii. 5. Now, however true it might be, 
that in these promises there was some reference to the 
multiplication of Abraham’s posterity in anatural sense ; 
or however reference might be had to a part of his na- 
tural posterity, as being included in the Covenant of) 
Grace, who should also be very numerous : 

are sure, that in their most important sense, ‘they ha ha 


53 


i respect, likewise, to all that should be truly conver- 
ted to the faith of the Gospel, though of Gentile ex- 
act. ‘To this purpose we have Paul’s exposition of 
these very passages, in Rom. iv: 16, 17, 18. ‘* There- - 
fore it is of faith, that it might be by grace: to the 

snd the promise might be sure to all the seed : not to 

that only which is of the law, but to that also which 

is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us 

ill. (As it is written, I have made thee a father of ma- 

1y nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, 

who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things 

which be not, as though they were. Who against 

1ope believed in hope, that he might become the fa- 

Her of many nations; according to that which was 

spoken, So shall thy seed be.” ‘Lo the same purpose, 

ead Gal. iii. 29. “« And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye 

Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the pro- 

mise.” Nothing can be more express. If the Bible 

may be admitted to be its own interpreter, we are sure 

hat the covenant seed not only included that part of 
Abraham’s natural posterity who were believers like 

1imself, but likewise all others of Gentile extract, who, 

oy faith, might be united with them, in the same Cove- 

jant. For he is the father of us all. But if the Cov- 

snant included Gentile believers, as well as his own 

zatural descendants ; then it must have extended to 

ill believers throughout all generations, and, conse- 

quently, must have been perpetual. 

‘4, The Abrahamic Covenant was not disannulled by 
he Sinai Dispensation. The Sinai Dispensation could 
not disannul the Covenant, which God made with A- 
braham, consistently with divine truth. God had pro- 
mised to Abraham, that he would be a God to him, 
and to his seed, throughout their generations. He also 
declared, that the Covenant, which he would make with 
them, should be an everlasting Covenant. And he 
farthermore declared, that he would make him the 
father of many nations, in a sense, that comprehended 
tt only his natural posterity, but Gentile nations also : 
declaration, which’ er had an aspect to the 


34 


great enlargement of the church, under the future 
Dispensation of the Gospel. Which things being 
promised, the divine veracity certainly stood pledged 
to make them good. It must therefore have been 
impossible, even as it is impossible for God to lie, 
that in the short space of four hundred and thirty years, 
God should introduce another Dispensation of sucha 
nature, as would prevent the accomplishment of these 
promises, and so disannul his Everlasting Covenant. 
Whatever design God might have in introducing the 
Sinai Dispensation, we may be fully assured, that it 
was no part of that design, to violate his own immu- 
table truth. In the next place, it is found to bea 
matter of fact, that. the Sinai Dispensation contained 
nothing in it, that had any such tendency; but on 
the other hand, was really subservient to the accom- 
plishment. of the promise. What if the Sinai Dis- 
pensation were a necessary means of preserving the 
Jewish Church from idolatry ? What if it were of a 
typical nature, and shadowed forth good things to 
come ? What if it were designed to preserve genealo- 
gies, in order that the person of the Sayiour might be 
designated ? What if it were also designed, to prove 
the Jews as a nation, and to.show what was in their 
hearts, by promising them temporal rewards in case 
of obedience ? Or, what if God saw it to be necessa- 
ry, to provide a place in this way, for the preserva- 
tion and security of his church, till the promised seed 
[the Savicur] should come ? What was there in-all 
this, or in any other use of it, that can be conceived, 
that was at all inconsistent with the continuation and 
perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant ? We can dis- 
cover many things, which served as an aid to it; but 
nothing which, in the least degree, militates against it 
To preserve some of the Jewish Church from idolatry. 
was necessary, in order to preserve a covenant see 
To designate the person of Christ, was necessary, ir 
order that he might be known, as the promised Mes. 
siah, and received in his true character. To under 
stand the depravity of the human heart, is necessary, i 


55 


order to believe on him, who justificth the ungodly, as 
Abraham believed. To provide for the church’s se- 
curity, is certainly necessary under all Dispensations. 
And the intimations of mercy, contained in the mys- ~ 
tical meaning of the types, at the same time the hearts. 
of the people were tried by the peculiar promises and 
threatnings of the Sinai Covenant, might lead the 
minds of the true spiritual seed to resort to the Cov- 
enant of Grace, as the only way of salvation. Though 
the Sinai Covenant, therefore, was in itself the minis- 
tration of death; never gave life to any ; because the 
terms and conditions of it were never perfectly fulfl- 
led ; yet, it may justly be considered, as well as the 
law in general, to be a schoolmaster to lead men to 
Christ. And what if after it had answered its true 
end and design, this superadded Dispensation was 
abolished ? How could its abolition disannul the Cov- 
enant with Abraham, any more than its first intreduc- 
tion ? The Abrahamic Covenant had existed without 
it, before the Sinai Covenant was introduced ; why 
then, may it not still exist without it, when the Sinai 
Covenant has answered its design and ceased ? Espe- 
cially, when it is considered, that the whole design of 
it, was to prepare the way for the future accomplish- 
ment of the Abrahamic Covenant. What appears thus 
perfectly clear and satisfactory from the very nature of 
the case, is also expressly confirmed by scripture. See 
Gal. ii. 17. “And this I say, that the Coven- 
ant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the 
law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, can- 
not disannul, that it should make the promise of none 
effect.” And again verse 24; ‘“* Wherefore the law 
was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we 
might be justified by faith.” But if the Sinai Dis- 
ensation did not disannul the Abrahamic Covenant, 
neither when it was introduced, nor when it was abol- 
shed, itis conceived*that the Abrahamic Covenant 
still continues, and is therefore perpetual. 
' 5. The Abrahamic Covenant was continued 
roughout the whole period of time, that the legal 


36 


Dispensation lasted : that is to say, they oo iia 
That the Abrahamic Covenant was contianee snepush 
this period, appears from its being often ratified and 
confirmed. How frequently does God call to remem- 
brance the oath, which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, 
and to Jacob ? ‘How often did he spare that guilty na- 
tion, and would not utterly destroy them on account of 
this oath? All the numerous passages to this purport, 
throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, evince the 
period. But not only ‘so, as before observed, there 
was in fact, a spiritual sced, to whom gracious prom: 
ises were made, and who were heirs of eternal life.— 
But, in what Covenant was this spiritual seed compre- 
hended ? Ly virtue of what Covenant did they obtain. 
eternal life ? Surely, not by the Sinai Covenant ; for. 
that was the ministration of death. Which Covenant. 
they brake, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 
ft must, therefore, have been by the Coyenant of 
Grace; by believing on him, who justifieth the un- 
godly ; afier the example of Abraham their great 
progenitor. These ail obtained @ good report by faith. 
‘There were also many promises, with respect to the 
future establishment, enlargement, and purity of the 
Jewish Church. *‘ The mountain of the Lord’s house 
shall be established.” “I will sprinkle clean | water. 
upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthi- 
ness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.”— 
Bat upon what ground are such promises made ? Cer- 
tainly not upon the ground of the Sinai Covenant ; 
for, according to that Covenant, they had nothing to 
expect, asa nation, but the imilbehen of ee awful, 
temporal judgments, which their sins had so justly 
merited. Accordingly, God declares that he would 
not do these things, for their sakes, be it known to, 
them, but for his own name’s sake. ‘ lam he thatl 
blotteth out thy transgressions, ack for mine own sake, 
will not remember thy sins.” “ I will heal their back- 
slidings, [£ will love them freely. » ¢ For the iniquit 
of his [ Jacob’s ] covetousness was I wroth and smot 


37 

him: I hid me, and was wroth, and he went on frow- 
ardly in the way of his heart: I have seen his ways, 
and will heal him: Iwill lead him also, and restore 
comforts unto him and to his mourners,” Here were_ 
gracious promises, then, made to those who, by the 
Sinai Covenant, had entirely failed : and consequently 
there must have been the continued existence of the 
Covenant of Grace, or such a Covenant, as God made 
with Abraham. 

6. The Sinai Covenant gave intimations of, and had 
frequent reference fo, another Covenant, more merci- 
ful than itself. It is not recollected that the Sinai Cov- 
enant doth any where, expressly promise salvation 
through Christ. The language of that legal Dispen- 
sation is, he that doeth those things shall live in them : 
but if ye walk contrary to me, I will walk contrary to 
you, and will punish you seven times for your sins.— 
It is not recollected that, that Dispensation doth any 
where expressly promise eternal life.* But it is well 
recollected, that the Sinai Covenant doth ina great 
variety of ways, shadow forth the death of Christ, as 
the only foundation of hope, and has mystical repre- 
sentations of his character and offices. This, how- 
ever, is a silent language, not to be understood, with- 


* Should it be thought an objection to this statement, that forgiveness 
‘was expressly declared, under the Sinai Dispensation, when prescribed 
offerings were brought ; it may still be enquired what kind of forgiveness 
that was. In some respecis it far exceeded, in other respects it fell far 
short, of that forgiveness which the gospel proposes. Whoscever among 
all the congregation of israel, brought his offering to the priest, in a case 
in which it was lawful to bring an offering, without any inquiry as.to the 
reality of his repentance, was declared to be forgiven. But it is not sup- 
posable, that all who thus brought their offerings, were subjects of gospel 
repentance. In this respect, then, it far exceeded. On the other hand, 
for many crimes, such as sabath-breaking, murder, adultery, incest, 
bestiality, é&c. no atonement was to be made ; but whosoever was guilty 
of any of these crimes, must bear his iniquity. But according to the gos- 
pel, it is possible that a person who has been guilty even of such crimes 
as these, may repent and obtain forgiveness. For all manner of, sin. and 
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, excepting only blasphemy against 
the Holy Ghost. In this respect, the forgiveness pronounced by the Si- 
fai Law fell far short. We are to conclude, then, that a. proper remis- 
‘sion of sins was not intended ; and that the person who was declared to 
be forgiven was only restored to his standing im the congregatien, instead 
of receiving that temporal punishment, which otherwise must have been 

nflicted upon him. a - 


—_— 


38 


out having recourse, either to the Covenant of Grace, © 
to the express declarations of the prophets, or to some — 
other intelligible instructor. The Sinai Covenant is 
indeed a ministration of death, which leads one to the 
knowledge of sin, and shows him the need of an a- 
tonement ; but when it has done this, acknowledges its - 
own insufficiency, and by means of the types, as so” 
many pointers, directs the attention to another, and a” 
better Covenant, as the foundation of hope. Hence, 
speaking of this old Covenant, the Apostle observes 
with great justice ; “‘ The letter killeth, but the spirit 
viveth life.” All the rites and institutions of the cere- 
monial law, then, so far as they were a shadow of good 
things to come, were so many intimations of the con- 
tinuance, and of the coexistence of the Abrahamic 
Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace. 

7. The Sinai Covenant only prepared the way for the ~ 
Abrahamic Covenant to be accomplished. In order 
for the Abrahamic Covenant to be carried into effect, 
in the full extent of it, there were other things con- 
nected with it, and necessary to take place preparatory 
to it. It was necessary that a spiritual seed should be — 
preserved, among his own natural descendants. It was” 
necessary thata branch of his natural posterity should be — 
kept distinct from all other nations, and theirgenealogies 
recorded, in order, that the Messiah, in whom the 
promises were made, might be known and distinguish-— 
ed. It was necessary, that the church should be 
brought into public view, in the sight of the nations, 
in order, that the world might be ina situation, to 
come to the knowledge of the truth. It was necessa-_ 
ry, then, that according to the promise, they should be - 
brought into the possession of the land of Canaan, and 
placed under just such a Dispensation, as in fact they 
were, till he, who was the promised seed, should come, 
and the way be fairly opened, for the gospel to be 
preached to all nations. All these things were neces- 
sary, because, such was the arrangement, which God | 
was pleased to make in his holy and wise providence, | 
and because, in this connexion, at different times, they 


, 


7 
br 
ms 

- 


39 


were all expressly promised. But if the Sinai Dis- 
pensation was necessarily preparatory to the full ac- 
complishment of God’s Covenant with Abraham, that 
he might become the father of many nations in the- 
sense of the promise, then every just view, which we 
camphave of the Sinai Dispensation, will fully demon- 
strate the continuance and perpetuity of the Abra- 
hamic Covenant. But not to dwell longer than is 
needful on this branch of the subject, I now proceed 
to observe, 
8. That under the Gospel Dispensation, so called, 
Gentile converts have actually become the children 
of Abraham by faith, agreeably to the tenor of the 
‘ancient promise. That Abraham, in the sense of 
the promise, might have other children, beside his 
natural descendants, appears to be well understood, 
and clearly intimated by John the Baptist, in what he 
said to the Pharisees and Sadducees, that went out to 
his baptism. “ Think not to say within yourselves, 
we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, 
that God is able of these stones to raise up children 
unto Abraham.” Which words, in whatever sense 
they are taken, whether as purporting, that God is able, 
in a literal sense, to change inanimate stones into living 
men; or whether, they are to be understood figuratively, 
that God is able to work a miracle equally great, by con- 
verting the Gentiles whose hearts were hard as stones, 
in either case do evidently convey the idea, that God 
is able, in the sense of the promise, to raise up others 
as children to Abraham, who never descended from 
him by natural generation. But when the expression is 
compared with theancient promise, and is found exactly 
to coincide with it, that Abraham should be the father 
of many nations, and of Gentile nations too, agreeably 
to the paraphrase of the Apostle ; it is not to be ddubt- 
ed, but it had a particular reference, to the future call- 
ing and conversion of the Gentiles: And there was 
good reason that it should. For as John came to pre- 
a the way of the Lord, a little before the close of the 
former Dispensation ; to give notice that the Saviour 


40 


was just at hand, and that the new Dispehsation of 
the gospel would soon commence; might it not be ex- 
pected, that he would also give some intimation of the 
great enlargement of the church, that was to take place 
together with it ? Beside, the Pharisees and Sadducees 
had been under a great mistake ; to Suppose that ghey 
were children of the promise, only because they had 
Abraham to their father, in a natural sense. How ex- 
ceedingly proper, then, that he should endeavor to 
correct this mistake, by telling them, what a true child 
of Abraham was; that it was not merély to descend 
from him, by natural generation, but to have the same 
faith that Abraliam had ; and that, consequently, even 
the Gentiles, as wel! as Jews might be the children of 
the promise. For God is able of these stones, to raise 
up children unto Abraham. . 
What John the Baptist thus evidently intimated, 
the Apostle Peter still more clearly expressed, in that 
memorable sermon, which he preached, on the day of 
Pentecost. ‘The audience which he addressed was 
mixed, and vastly numerous. The greater part were 
undoubtedly Jews ; but not all. There were Parthi- 
ans, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in 
Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, m Pon- 
tus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and 
in the: parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of 
Rome, Jews and Proselytes, Cretes and Arabians.— 
But in his address to them, he has the following re- 
markable words: ‘‘ Repent, and be baptized, every 
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your 
children, and to all that are afar off, even as many a 
the Lord our God shall call.” Here, then, is one par- 
ticular promise, which is brought into view, and whic 
to distinguish it from all others, the Apostle denomi n 
ates the promise. Ht appears, also, to have been a prom 
ise, which primarily concerned, and had been usualh 
applied to, the Jewish Church. Nothing, then, can bi 
more obvious, than that the promise, im this passag 


os 


Al 


means the promise, which God made to Abraham, that 
he would be a God to him and to his seed : that is, that 
he would be the God of all them that believe : or, as it 
is elsewhere expressed, I will be their God and they 
shall be my people. It is also plain, that the promise, 
is here applied not only to such as are the natural de- 
scendants of Abraham, but likewise to others who 
are of Gentile extract. For the promise is not only to 
you, [ Jews, ] and to your children ; but likewise to all 
that are afar off. And it is equally plain, that the prom- 
ise is not unexceptionably made, either to all the Jews 
that are nigh, or to ali the Gentiles that are afar off : 
but to all of a certain character and description; even 
as many as the Lord our God shall call. Though, 
therefore, the Apostle, as yet, had not a clear under- 
standing of the way and manner, in which the Gentiles 
would be received into the Christian church, without 
the observance of the law of Moses, as appears from 
his after conduct ; yet, he is, even now, very clear in 
the assertion, that the promise does as truly belong 
to the Gentile proselyte, as the Jew, and accordingly 
commences his preaching, with this public declaration, 
that the promise is to all them that are afar off, evenas 
many as the Lord our God shall call. His discourse, 
then, would naturally lead to the conclusion, that un- 
der the Gospel Dispensation, Gentile converts, as well 
as believing Jews, are considered as children of the 
promise. | 

- But a little time elapsed, before this same Apostle 
had an opportunity of seeing his declaration verified, 
in a manner, that even exceeded his present expecta- 
tion. Cornelius, a devout centurion, in answer to his 
prayers, was directed by an angel, to send to Joppa 
for Peter. Peter also had an extraordinary vision, to 
remove the scruples, which he otherwise might have 
had, in @oing in to men that wefe uncircumcised.— 
Accordingly, when the messengers arrived, he was 
already prepared to go with them, nothing doubting. 
By the time he arrived at the place, Cornelius had 
ealled together his kinsmen and near friends, who, as it 


42 


appears, were also Gentile men. After ea | 
of all the extraordinary crcU TS ae 
brought them together, he proceeded to dis 
them the word of life. And what was still eed 
markable than all the rest, to his great astonishme 
all his hearers were converted : for, the Holy Ghost feb 
on all them that heard the word: so that without farthe 
scruple, he commanded them to be baptized, in t 
name of the Lord. In this remarkable manner, 301 
verified in his providence, what he had before reveals 
by his Holy Spirit, that the promise was also to ther 
that were afar off, who should be effectually called. — 
Very soon, this became a fact of great publicity. Be 
ing thoroughly mvestigated, it was acknowledged 
the whole board of the Aposiles. And, from this ti 
forth, Gentile converts were multiplied, till, in fact 
their number far surpassed the number of the natural de: 
scendants of Abraham, who were children of the prom- 
ise. So that if you would now find the children | Of 
the. Covenant, though you may find, here and there; 
one of the natural stock of Abraham, yet, you mus 
seek for them, principally amongst the nations of the 
Gentile world. As Moses saith, I will provoke you to 
jealousy by them that are no people, and by a ee 
nation I will anger you: 
But we are to remark, not only, that the promis 
was. declared to be to them that were afar off ane 
declaration verified, by the calling of the 
but also, that the- Gentile: Churches are exp! 
clared to be of the commonwealth of Israel. fe 
aul writes to the church at Ephesus: “ Wherefoi 
remember, that ye being in’ time past Gentiles int 
flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by that ich i is 
called the circumcision, in the flesh made b 
that at that time ye were without Christ, bev 
Jrom the commonwealth of Israel, and si rs fro 
the covenanis of promise, having no hope, and withot , 
God in the world. But now, im Christ Jesus, ye wh 
sometimes were afar off are made nigh, by pole 
of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made bo 


$e 


43 


ne, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition 
stween us ; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, 
fen the law of commandments contained in ordinan- 
Ss ; for to make in himself of twain, one new man, so 
aking peace ; and that he might reconcile both unto 
od, in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity 
ereby ; and came and preached peace to you which 
ere afar off,and to them that were nigh. For throu gh 
m we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 
ow therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, 
t fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of 
od.”” Eph. ii. 11—19. But in what sense are Gentile 
lievers of the commonwealth of Israel ? Israel, as 
plied to a collective body, must mean one, or the 
er, of these two things: either the whole Jewish 
tion, as they were placed under the peculiar Coven- 
t of Sinai; or else, those who were considered and 
knowledged, as being the true children of the prom- 
: by faith. That the first is frequently styled Israel 
ne will deny. And that Israel is often used to ex- 
ess the latter, is equally evident. For they are not 
Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they 
: the seed of Abraham, are they all children : but in 
yac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are 
2 children of the flesh, these are not the children of 
id: but the children of the promise are counted for 
2 seed. And indeed, when we read the gracious 
omises, which are made to Israel, throughout the 
ume of the Scriptures; we must either understand 
; name, as applicable only to the scriptural seed, or 
e, we must fall into the absurdity of supposing, that 
same promises are made, both to believers, and 
unbelievers, in direct contradiction to the general 
or of God’s word. In’which of these senses, then, 
Gentiles belong to the commonwealth of Israel ? 
tainly not in the first. For the Sinai Dispensation 
ig abolished, it is not possible that they should be 
edunder it. To be joined to such a body corporate, 
lid only be the continuance of the same old man ; 
reas the Apostle states, that by the accession of the 


—-.* 


AA 


Gentiles, to the commonwealth of Israel, he hath ma 
of twain one new man, so making peace. Beside, whe 
could be the benefit of being joined to the Jewish na 
tion ? We might still sustain the same character ¢ 
unbelief, that a great part of the Jewish nation did, ani 
consequently, be still without God in the world, 
much as the Gentiles ever were, im their gros: 
est state of ignorance, notwithstanding our bein 
placed under the Sinai Covenant. For this Covenat 
they brake, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 
Gentile believers, tien, are of the commonwealth 
Israel, by being added to the true spiritual church 
God; being incorporated with that successive body 
believers, which are acknowledged to be the re 
Israel of God, to whom the promise is made ; thoug 
still coming out from the mass of the Jewish natio 
with which, during the Sinai Dispensation, the churc 
was connected, so as to constitute a new man. But 
Gentile believers are of the commonwealth of Israe 
by being added to the number of those who are cour 
ed for the seed ; what is this but saying, that they al 
as really the children of Abraham, im the sense of t 
promise, as any of his own.natural posterity were 2 

A very similar statement is also made in 11th Cha 
ter to the Romans: though held forth under the all 
gory of an olive tree: of which, some of the brane! 
es are broken off, and others graffed im amongst # 
remaining natural branches. ‘The Apostle having ¢ 
ready stated, that a great part of the Jewish nati 
‘ had been rejected for their unbelief, and, also, that 
the holy and wise providence of God, their fall hi 
been the riches of the world, and their diminution tl 
riches of the Gentiles; that is, that through their fa 
salvation had come to the Géntiles ; proceeds to git 
the Gentiles a caution, lest they also should be cut! 
for their unbelief. ‘‘ If some of the branches be br 
ken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert gra 
fed in among them, and with them partakest of t 
root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast no¢ agaif 
the branches: but if thou boast, thou bearest not t 


45 


_ root, but the root thee.” By the olive tree in this al- 


‘ 


r, we are doubtless to understand the visible 
_ ehurch, comprehending not only the spiritual seed, 


which ; is the true church, but likewise, ali others, w 4 


¢ 


are united with them in a visible covenant. The ob- 
ject of the allegory is toshow us, that whatever our 


_ church standing may be, there is no acceptance with 
_ God, if we remain in a state of unbelicf. And in or- 


der to this, he brings to view the case of the repro- 
bate Jews ; who, though they were the natural de- 

scendants of Abraham, had been connected with the 
visible church under the Sinai Dispensation, and had 
been the subjects of many privileges, whereby they 
were distinguished from all other nations, yet, were nev- 
ertheless disowned by God, and rejected for their unbe- 
lief: thus being broken of, from all connexion with 
the true Church of Ged, who are the subjects of the pro- 
mises. Then, from their example, he warns and ad- 
monishes the Gentiles, who had now beea brought in- 
toa visible connexion with the Church, though un- 
der a different dispensation, not to De high minced, 


- but to fear, from the consideration that they aiso stand 


‘by faith. “ For if God spared not the natural branch- 


es, take heed lest he also spare not thee.” As much 
as to say, if they, whe were the natural seed of Abra- 


ham ; who had been, so long a time, connected with 
the Church under a peculiar dispensation ; and to 


whom the oracles ef God were first delivered ; if those 
natural branches (keeping up still the allegory of the 
olive tree) were cut off from all connexion with the 
covenant seed, on account of their unbelief; can it 
be reasonably expected, that the Gentiles, aia are a 
wild olive, that is, who never had any such natual re- 


lation to Abraham, but have been grajfed into the ol- 


ive tree, should still have the approbation of God, 


though guilty of the same unbelicf ? Take heed lest 


he also spare not thee. But though the object of the 
allegory is fully answered, by showing the consequen- 


ces of unbelief; yet, it does not follow, that they, 


who were grafied in, were precisely in the same sit 


46 


tion, that they had been, who were broken off: On 
the other hand, it is manifest, that they were not. 
They were both connected with the Church of God; 
but, it was under very different dispensations ; in 
which the outward form and appearance of the visible 
Church was altogether dissimilar. As, therefore, we 


may hold up the murmurings, and the fornication,” 


and the unbelief, of the children of Israel in the wilder- 
ess, as ensamples to us, as the Apostle has done ; and 
yet, we may not infer from thence, that we are jour- 
neying through the same wilderness with them: so we 
may take warning from the rejection of the Jews, 


without considering the Gentile Churches, as being” 


placed in precisely the same circumstance and condi- 
tion, that they had been in, .who were broken off. 
However, it does clearly appear, from this allegory, 
that there were a number of the natural branches, that 


never were broken off; that there was a succession of ~ 


the true spiritual seed, that never was rejected for their 
unbelief ; and that amongst these natural branches, 


the Gentiles were graifed, and with them partake of 


the root and fatriess of the olive tree. All which still 


farther confirms and establishes the doctrine, that be- - 


lievers, of Gentile extract, are brought into the fami- 
ly of Abraham, and are considered, as being his seed, 
according to the promise. 7 


But more than this, it is expressly stated, that the 
blessing of Abraham hath come upon the Gentiles. — 
See Gal. i. 8. “ And the scripture, foreseeing that — 


God would justify the heathen through faith, preached 


before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall 


all nations be blessed.” And again verse 14. “ That: 
the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles 
through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the prom- 
ise of the Spirit through faith,” But what was the 
blessing of Abraham ? It was, evidently, contained. 
in these two promises. First, that Ged would make 


him the father of many nations. And secondly, that 


he would be a God to him, and to his seed after him, 
throughout their generations. If then, the blessing. 
m ; 
2 


/ 


AT 


of Abraham hath come upon the Gentiles, what else 
can we understand by: it, but that Gentiles have be- 
come the true children of Abraham, and that God has 
become their covenant God, according to the purport 
of the promise. ‘As it is written, I have made thee 
a father of many nations.” And again, “So shall 
‘thy seed be.” 
_ But to put the matter beyond all controversy, Gen- 
tile believers are expressly called Abraham’s children. 
See Rom. iy. 11. “ And he received the sign of cir- 
cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
which he had yet being uncircumcised ; that he might 
be the father of ali them that believe, though they be 
not circumcised ; that righteousness might be impu- 
ted unto them also.” See also verse 16. ** Therefore 
it isof faith, that it might be by grace ; to the end 
the promise might be sure to all the seed : not to that 
only which is of the law, but to that also which is of 
the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” 
See also Gal. iii. 26, to the end.“ For ye are all the 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as ma- 
ny of you as have been baptized into Christ have put 
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there 
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor fe- 
‘male : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye 
be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs 
according to the promise... Abraham, then, is as tru- 
ly, the father of believing Gentiles,"in the sense of 
‘the promise, as he is of his own natural.posterity. 
For there is no distinction. There is neither Jew nor 
Greek, there is neither dond nor Sree, there is neither 
male nor female: but all who believe, without any 
exception, all who belong to Christ, are Abraham’s 
seed and heirs according to the promise. ‘The Abra- 
hamic Covenant, then, still continues, embraces all 
believers throughout the whole of the Gospel Dispen- 
ation, and, consequently, must be perpetual. 
_ Nor can I forbear to add, that the Abrahamic Cov- 
nant will still continue, and will be still more exten- 
sively accomplished, when God shall appear in his 


AS 
glory to build up Zion, in the last days. The Scrip- 


tures are replete with predictions of the futu _ suc- 
cess of the gospel, when it shall prevail throughout 
the whole earth, and the nations be converted. “ For 
the earth shall be filled with the knowledge and t the ‘glo- 
ry of the Lord, as the waters cover the seas.” But 
with what people will the nations be incorporated, 

when that long expected, and greatly desired event 
shall take place ? It appears from the, sure word of 
prophecy, that they will be incorporated, with the fam-, 
ily of Israel, or in other words, with the true cove- 
nant dhildeen of Abraham. See Isaiahii. 2. “ And 
it shall come to pass in the last days, that the moun- 
tain of the Lord’s house shall be established i in the top 
of the mountains, and shall be exalted above. the hills ; 
and all nations shall fow unto it. And many people 
shall go and say, come ye, andlet us go upto the 
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of. Jae 
cob; and he will teach us of his ways, and’ we will 
walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, 
and the word of the Lord .from Jerusalem. And he 
shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many 
people ; and they shall. beat their swords into oie 
shares, and their spears into pruning hooks : nation 
shall not lift up sword against nation, n neither shall they ! 
learn war any more.” ,.To the same purpose, is the 
whole of the 60th Chapter. ‘The prophet, _ addressing 
himself to the true Israel of God, in language of exul, 
tation breaks out, ‘“ Arise, shine ; for thy! light is come, 
and the glory of the Lord. is risen upon ‘thee. For,’ 
behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gros: 
darkness the people : but the Lord shall arise Upol 
thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. Anat th : 
Gentiles shall come to thy light, and_ ings t to the 
brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes. cust 
about, and see; all they gather themselves to, gether, | 
they come to thee: thy sons shall ¢ sia Bios an | 
thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side, Lh | 

shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart eS 
be enlarged ; because the abundance of the. sea sh 


49 


be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles 
shall come unto thee. The multitude of camels shall 
cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah ; 
all they from Sheba shall come, they shall bring gold ~ 
and incense ; and they shali shew forth the praises of the 
Lord. Allthe flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to- 
eether unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minis- 
rer unto thee : they shall come up with acceptance on 
mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory. 
Who are those that fly as a cloud, and as the doves 
to their windows ? Surely, the isles shall wait for me, 
and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from 
far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the 
name of the Lord thy God, and to the holy One of Is- 
rael, because he hath glorified thee. And the sons of 
strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall 
minister unto thee : for in my wrath I-smote thee, but 
in my favor have I had mercy on thee. ‘Therefore thy 
zates shall be open continually ; they shall not be shut 
day nor night ; that men may bring the forces of the 
Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For 
the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall 
perish.” And so onto the end of the Chapter. To 
the same purpose is Zechariah viii. 20. ‘‘ Thus saith 
the Lord of hosts, in those days it shall come to pass, 
that ten men shall take hold, out of alldanguages of 
the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him 
that is a Jew, saying, we will go with you ; for we 
have heard that God is with you.” Many other pas- 
sages might be transcribed to the same purpose, but it 
is not deemed necessary ; the mind of the reader will 
readily supply them. From the passages already ad- 
duced, the following things are evident. First, that 
here are large and extensive promises made to the 
house of Israel, that never have, as yet, been accom- 
lished, and therefore, still remain to be fulfilled. 
econdly, that whenevera general reformation shall take 
lace through the world, it will be preceded by a con- 
rersion of the house of Israel, or the natural descend- 
nts of Abraham, who are considered still, as the 
G 


Om 
elder brother, and are designed to be distingui 
such, in the dispensation of divine grace. And, thi idly 
that when the Gentile nations shall be converted, 
will'flow together tothe mountain of the Lord’s Mere 
by‘being incorporated with that part of the natural de 
scendants of Abraham, who are counted for the seed 
er in other words, ~w ith the true Israel of God, tc 
whom the promises are made. So that as their diminu 
tion, according to the observation of the Apostle, hatl 
proved the riches of the Gentiles, much more wil 
their fulness. And as some | of the Gentiles were 
efafied into the olive tree amongst the natural branches 
when some of the natural branches were broken off 
so, in like manner, shall all the Gentile nations be graf 
fed into the same olive tree, on some future day, wher 
God shall gather the scattered tribes of the natura 
decendants ae Abraham, and recetve them into cove 
= sep “ For if thou wert cut ‘out of the oliv 
ee, which is wild: by nature, and wert grafied con 
trary to nature intoa good olive tree, how much mor 
shall niga which be the natural branches, be graffec 
ito their own olive tree ? For I would not, brethren 
that ye should be ignorant of this: mystery (lest. 
should be wise in your own’conceits,) that blindness i 
part ‘is happened to Israel, until the fulness of th 
entiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved 
as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the De 
liverer, and s shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.’ 
On the “— Aen it appears that the Covenant 
which God made with Abraham, had alvery exten 
sive reach. That j it embraced not only great number 
of his natural posterity, but also countless millions o 
the Gentile nations, even all, that should become heit 
of the promises by faith. . That though, it began to bi 
accomplished i in the days of Abraham, and was’ cor 
tinued throughout the whole of the! ‘Old. Testamer 
Dispensation, yet it had a farther accomplishment ‘upo 
the introduction of the Gospel Dispensation, cand w 
still continue to be accomplished till all’ nations shall 
converted. “Or, according to the expression ‘of ‘t 


Se 


-« 


prophet, till “ leaies shall blossom and bud, and fill the 
face of the world with fruit.”2. The Bon cusnd made 
with Abraham, then, isa perpetual Covenant, never as 
been abrogated, never wl be, never canbe, so long - 
as there are any such persons in existence, as are chil- 
dren of Abraham by faith. From the Covenant of 
Abraham, therefore, inferences may be safely drawn to 
the present Dispensation of the gospel. 

When it is said that inferences may be drawn, from 
the Abrahamic Covenant, to the present Dispensation, 
it is needful, however, to observe that it is not intend- 
ed, that inferences may be drawn from any such cir- 
cumstances, as were peculiar to the Abrahamic Dis- 
pensation. The Covenant made with Abraham was 
an Everlasting Covenant, the Covenant of Grace; and, 
consequently, as above demonstrated, common to all 
believers : yet, as observed in the preliminaries of this 
discourse, in the first dispensation cf this Covenant, 
there were, doubtless, some things) which were pe- 
culiar to the time, in which Abraham lived, and, con- 
seqently, no inferences can be. drawn putas these, to 
any future dispensation. For instance, it was proper 
in the days of Abraham, that he should build an altar, 
and offer. sacrifices, as a typical representation of the 
future sufferings of the Messiah : but, this being only 
a temporary institution, there would be no propricty, in 
drawing an inference from thence, that sacrifices are still 
incumbent, since the antitype, which was pr efigured 
by them, has actually come. ‘There were, also, promises 
made to Abraham, which implicated, that his natural 
posterity would be very numerous, and that there 
would be a continued succession of them, who should 
be children of the promise, and counted for the seed: 
but we may not infer from thence, that every believer 
will have a natural posterity, equally numerous, or that 
there will be acontinued succession of belicvers amongst 
them. It was promised to Abraham, that some of hisna- 
x ral posterity, after being afflicted for the space of four 
aundred years, should be delivered from the houseof bon- 


Jage, and brought into the literal possession of ihe land of | 


52 


Canaan: but the inference does not follow, that there: 
is a similar promise, now made to every believer, witl 
regard to any future generation of his descendants. 
There was a promise made to» Abraham, that the) 
Saviour, as it respects his humanity, should be one of 

| 
| 


his natural seed : but it is not to be inferred from: 
thence, that there is a similar promise made to every” 
believer, for it is not to be expected, that the Saviour 
will ever be born again. So in regard to the token of 
the Covenant, God gave to Abraham the sign of cir-" 
cumcision, a token very proper at that time, as shi mi 
a particular respect to Christ, that seed in whom.the” 
promises were made, as well as serving for a general! 
token of God’s Covenant with believers : and yet, no) 
inference can be drawn from thence, that the same to- 
ken of the Covenant is still to be administered ; for, 
we are expressly taught in the New Testament Scrip." 
tures, that the rite of circumcision, though it was not 
of Moses, but of the fathers, is now no longer to be 
observed. But while we express this caution,’ 
with regard to such things, as were only temporary) 
and local ; we are still to observe, that from all such: 
things, as were of a permanent nature, inferences may/ 
be justly drawn, to every future dispensation. » If the! 
Covenant made with Abraham was in itself an Ever- 
lasting Covenant ; if it was the Covenant of Grace, i 
which all believers are alike interested; then, we may! 
safely infer, that the faith of Abraham: was a suitable: 
pattern for our faith : and that the practice of Abra- 
ham, so faras it conformed to the immutable relation 
and fitness of things, was a‘suitable- example for us to 
imitate. Did Abraham believe ? So ought we. Did’ 
Abraham believe on him that justifieth the ungodly ? 
So ought we. Did the faith of Abraham produ 
obedience ? And was he thus justified, manifestively, 
by works ? So our faith, if we have any, must work 
by love. Was Abraham under obligation to instruct 
his household, in the principles of religion, in conse- 
quence of the relation, which: he. bore to them? Be- 
levers must still be under the same. obligation ;. for, 


5S 


the relation, which they. bear to their households, is 
precisely the same. Did the Covenant with Abrahanmy 
contemplate a future seed, and was the token of the 
Covenant applied to his whole household, as an intima- 
Mion of such a succession, throughout all future gen- 
erations ?. The Covenant made with believers still 
contemplates a future succession 5 and we may,, there- 
ore, reasonably infer, that, if there be any token of 
the Covenant still existing, it would still be reasonable, 
‘hat it should be applied for a similar purpose, to all 
subjects whose condition is similar. 

It is not to be admitted, thata change of the to- 
ken of the Covenant could» make any change, in. 
the Everlasting Covenant itself. Suppose a person 
vere to promise to another the payment of a certain: 
sum of money ; and, to give him the fullest assurance, 
and good security, were to sign a note of hand ; and, 
;the custom of the time might be, were to seal it 
ith a broad red seal. And suppose, in process of 
ime, he should have occasion to renew his noie, when, 
bircumstances and customs having varied with the lapse 
of time, insteadof sealing it with a red seal, he should 
make use of a white one, or should only sign it in the 
presence of two witnesses ; who would suppose that the 
obligation was, in the least degree, altered or weaken- 
isd, because it was renewed, or because the ceremony: 
bf signing and witnessing was a little varied? If the 
note were to be wrested from the holder by violence, 
and no new one given in its stead ; even such a proce- 
dure, as this, would not release the signer, from. the 
moral obligation he was under, to make good his._prom- 
ise, though it would carry the appearance with. it, 
that it was not his real intention to do it. But if the 
note be voluntarily renewed by him who is the promi- 
ser, signed, and delivered, and that in’ the presence: 
of good and substantial witnesses ; the very circum- 
stance of its being renewed, greatly corroborates. the 
evidence, both that such an obligation was really en- 
tered into, and that it is the honest and upright inten+ 


hy. ‘ 


\ 
i 


54 


tion of the obligor to fulfil it. So in the case before 
us, if God, in process of time, had taken away the 
token, which he had given to Abraham, of his Cove- 
nant with him, and his seed, without renewing the 
promise, and without instituting some other token, in 
the room of that which was abolished, it would ii 
indeed, as though the truth of God had Sued ; 
though he had forgotten the everlasting Scanned 
But, if when there were manifest circumstances to 
render it expedient, God did, in fact, renew and con- 
firm the same Covenant; and though he declared. the 
rite of circumcision to be obsolete, still proceeded ta 
annex to his Covenant other seals, and other tokens. 
in evidence of it; yea farther, in his holy providence, 
still goes on to carry his promise, more, and more inte 
effect, in exact correspondence with the tenor of it ; 
surely, it leaves not the least room to doubt, but: what 
God was sincere and in earnest, when he promised 
Abraham, that he would be a God to him, and to his 
seed after him, throughout their generations. sip 
From the Covenant. of Abraham, then, as well as 
from any thing else that was of a permanent nature, 
Wwe may draw ‘inferences to the present dispensation, 
If, therefore, it be found to be a fact, that there is 
another token instituted, of the same Conenantachars 
ing substantially the same significancy that cireumcis- 
ion anciently had ; then, the inference wil , 
appear to be just, that it ought to be applied to the 
same kind of subjects, which circumcision anciently 
was. Letus now, then, make a comparison between 
the ancient rite of circumcision, and the gospel ordi. 
nance of baptism, and see how far they will agree. 
And here, it will suffice, with brevity, to observe, 
Was circumcision a token of the Covenant of Grace ? 
So is baptism; for the Covenant of Abraham is the 
same Covenant, that is made with all them that be- 
live. Was circumcision administered to the believer 
in consequence of the faith which he previously h , 
being yet uneinanmeiaes and was it, itis lite 


55 


believer’s  circumcision* ? So isbaptism to be ad- 
ministered to the believer, in consequence of the faith 
which he had, being yet unbaptized. Did the adult, 
who was circumcised, bear sucha relation to his 
household, that it was bis duty to instruct them, in 
the principles of that religion, which he himself be- 
lieved 2? The adult, who is baptized, bears the same 
relation to his household, and is under the same obhi- 
zation. Was the attention of the believer, who re- 
ceived the sign of circumcision, directed to a continu- 
ed and uninterrupted succession of the spiritual seed 
to the end of the world ? ‘The believer, who is bapti- 
zed, being incorporated with the same commonwealth 
of Israel, is led to entertain the same expectation. 
Did circumcision extend, not enly to the natural 
posterity of Abraham, but, also, to Gentile prose- 
lytes? So does baptism. Baptism, then, appears to 
be an ordinance, which has precisely the same signifi- 
cancy, considered as a token of the Covenant, which 
_eieonenta anciently had. There is still existing the’ 
ame kind of subjects, viz. believers and their house- 
holds, to which the ancient token of the Covenant 
was applied: What rationz! mind, then, would not 
jaturally, and necessarily, be ted to the conclusion, 
that the ordinance of baptism, meaning the same 


}. * 1f circumcision was a token of Gad’s Covenant with believers oniy, 
why then, under the Sinaitic Dispensation, was it applied to the whole 
rouse of Israel, many of whom, it is on ail hands coniessed, were unbe- 
jevers ?—To this it is replied, that though the rite cf circunicision, as it 
stood connected with the Covenant ct Abraham, was a token of God’s 
Covenant with believers, and with them only; yet there may be no in- 
consistency in saying, that ancther use was, likewise, made or it under 
the Sinai Dispensation ; while it continued to serve as a token of the 
(Covenant with Abraham still. As the bow in the cloud, at the same time 
it was a token of God’s Covenant with Noah and the earth, had also 
sther uses, serving to display the wisdom and power of the great Creator,in 
roncert with all the other beautiful and sublime phenomena of nature—- 
And indeed, why should it be more inconsistent, that the rite of circum- 
vision should have a peculiar use made of it, under the Sinai Dispensation, 
han that a peculiar use should be inade of the moral Law in general, as 
well as of the Sabbath in particular ; each of which were applied to 
some different uses, under the Sinai Dispensation, fromm what hey ever 
had been before, notwithstanding the primary.use of them wus Continued, 
an Sealine now their connexion with the Sinaitic Dispensation is 

solved, a: 


1 
y 


lis 


‘ 


56 


thing, that the rite of circumcision ‘did, and st 
coming in its place, ought to be applied to th 
same subjects, and to the same extent ? Especially. 
when upon the introduction of this new token of the 
Covenant, there is nothing said to limit or restrict the 
application of it, short of its original boundaries: 
Suppose a person hath a field, that hath heretofore 
been accurately bounded and enclosed with an hedge 
fence made of thorns. But now, at length, he di 
rects his servants to go and take away the thorn hedge 
and to puta good picked fence in the room of it 
Though nothing farther were tobe said, would not thes¢ 
servants, if they had common sense, naturally con: 
clude, that though a new kind of fence was to*be sub: 
stituted, in the room of the old one, that the samé 
boundaries were to be still regarded, and that precisei 

the same field was still to be enclosed ? And if instead c 
doing thus they were to contract the ancient limits, an¢ 
were to throw out one half of his field into the com 
‘mon, would they not be justly chargeable, with hav 
ing gone contrary to the true meaning and intention o 
their orders ? So in the case before us, the ancient to 
ken of the Covenant, viz. circumcision, was to bead 
ministered to believers and their households.. When 
therefore, in process of time, anew token was inst 

tuted, that had the same meaning, and was designec 
to answer, substantially, the same important purpo 
ses ; if nothing were to be said on the subject, to re 
strict the application of it, would not every rational pe 
son be led to the conclusion, that the new token of th 
covenant was to be applied, to the same tbe ed 


nance was to be applied to precisely the same subjec 
asthe old? Now this is exactly the case with regar 
tothe gospelordinance of baptism, It is not only an or 


57 


jinance, which has the same meaning and use as cir- 
sumcision, but from the .first administration of it, 
there isnot a syllable said, in the scriptures, to limit 
ts application, short of the ancient boundary line, to 
which the token of the Covenant had extended. 
Now is not this very strange ? Is it not altogether 
neredible ? If so great an alteration were to take place, 
n the application of the token of the Covenant, as 
hat all the households of believers were to be left out 
xf view, to whom the token had been applied from 
ime immemorial; that neither Christ should. say a 
word about it, when he commanded the apostles to. 
naptize ; nor Peter, when he commenced the adminis- 
ration of baptism, on the day of Pentecost ; nor the 
lews, who were so strongly attached to all their tra- 
litions, when they saw their households neglected ; 
hnd indeed, that no other person, whether friend or 
oe, Should ever start any question abont it, through- 
yut the whole of the Acts of the Apostles. If there 
vere nothing but the bare silence of the New Testa- 
ent on this subject, we might still, only reasoning 
nalogically, from the Abrahamic Covenant, have the 
strongest presumptive evidence, that baptism, the 
nresent token of the Covenant, is to be administered 
o believers and their households. But when it is far- 
her taken into view, that Christ, in the commission 
which he gave .to his apostles, commanded them to 
Haptize all nations, making no exception of house- 
| holds ; and when it is also remarked, that the apostles 
Hid baptize households, without mentioning the faith 
of any, but of the believing head ; when it is remem- 
Ibered, that they declared the children to be holy, that 
is in a dedicated sense, where either of the parents 
vas a believer ; when they were so abundant in the as- 
sertion, that the blessing, the promise and the Cove- 
Mnant of Abraham has come upon the Gentiles ; when 
itis considered, that the promise, of which circumcis- 
ion was a token, viz. Iwill be a God to thee and to thy 
ed after thee, throughout their generations, as really 
extends forward, now, throughout all time future, as 
H 


if 


~ sisted. 


58 


it did from the days of Abraham down to the coming 
of Christ ; and when it is farther considered, that th 
Covenant of Abraham shall still continue to be carrie! 
into effect, till all the Gentiic nations shall become tk 
children of Abraham, be grafied into the olive tree 
and be incorporated with the commonwealth of Israel 
who inthat day shall be the seed of the blessed of th 
Lord, and their offspring with them ; the argumen 
for applying the present tokea of the Covenant, to th 
households of believers, does not rest, entirely, upo 
the silent ground of presumptive evidence ; ; but ther 
is such direct and positive proof, as it is believed 
when fairly viewed, by the candid mind cannot be re 


The following inferences, then, will naturally re 

sult from the view, which we have taken of this sub 
ject. 
1. The households of believers are to be bapt 
zed, as a token of God’s Covenant with the behevei 
The application of the ancient token of the Covena 
leads us to infer it. The practice of the Apostles 
who actually baptized households, puts it boron 4 
question. 

2. No household is to be baptized, till one of th 
heads of that household hath made a credible profes 
son of faith, and entered into full covenant with Go 
Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him fa 
righteousness ;_ then, he received the token of th 
Covenant, applied to himself, and his household, : 
the sign of the righteousness of the faith which he had 
pa yet uncircumcised. If we walk in his step: 


‘then, we are to do likewise. To baptizea houscholc 
when neither of the parents, or guardians, is in fu 


covenant, is acting without any warrant, either frot 
the ' example of Abraham, from the praetice of tl 
Apostles, or from any other part of the divine wor 
Without inquiring into the manner, in which such 
practice was first introduced, and without. calling 
question the motives of some good m vho migl 
madvertently adopt it, not sufliciently tigatin; 


59 


he subject ; to say the least, it must have been an er- 
‘or, which ought to be universally exploded. With- 
sut faith it is impossible to please God ; and to receive 
he token of the Covenant, as a sign of the rightcous- 
1ess of our faith, when we have none, must be hy- 
yocrisy. 

3. They, who have brought their households to the 
ordinance of baptism, -must be under the most solemn 
ind sacred obligations, to endeavor to bring them up 
n the fear of the Lord, and to teach them the princi- 
ales of that religion, which they themselves have pro- 
essed to believe. One reason, why Abraham was 
sommanded to apply the token of the Covenant to his 
yousehold, was, that his mind might be more deeply 
mpressed, with a sense of the duty, which he natur- 
uly owed to them, and that he might thus be instru- 
mental, of rearing such a spiritual seed, as was con- 
emplated in the promise. Hence it is said, ‘‘ 1 know 
jim, that he will command his children and his house- 
old after him, and they shall keep the way of the 
ord, to do justice and judgment ; that the Lord may 
bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of 
im.” Gen. xviii. 19. ‘The circumcision of Abra- 
4am’s household did not constitute any new relation 
between him and them, which did not exist before. 
He was, as truly, the head of his family, and as really un- 
Her obligation to command and instruct them, before he 
sircumcised them, as he was afterward. But when 
the token of the Covenant was applied 'to his house- 
hold, his mind was especially directed to them. His 
Juty was supposed to be realized and voluntarily ac- 


or ever in remembrance. It would, therefore, be 
most reasonable to expect, that after all this conviction - 
bf duty, these voluntary acknowledgments, and these 
sovenant engagements, Abraham would endeavor to 
sommand his household after him, that they might 
keep the way of the Lord. If the token of the Cov- 
enant, then, is applied to the households of believers, 


60° 


now, for the same purpose, that it was anciently appl 
ed to the household of Abraham, must it not be ev 
dent, that believers are still under the greatest oblig 
tions, not only on the ground of natural relation, but 
their own voluntary covenant engagements, to bringu 
their children, in the nurture and admonition of t 

Lord ? If, then, there are those, who bring their chi 
dren to the ordinance of baptism, and afterward pa 
no suitable attention to the important duties connecte 
with it, and which it is designed to keep in remem 
brance ; if they can see their households in a state 
disorder, and never try to regulate them ; see the 
ignorant, and never instruct them in the way of life; 
see them going astray from God, and not do whati 
them lies to restrain them, such parents must incur th 
ageravated guilt of having known, and acknowledge 
their duty, and yet, violating their most solemn cov 
enant engagements. With no propriety can it be sai 
that they walk in the steps of Abraham, by baptizin 
their households, while they thus neglect their dut 
tothem; for it is said of Abraham, J know him, 
he will command his children and his household aft. 

him. i 
4. Though the households of believers are to | 
baptized, as a token of God’s Covenant with the be: 
lieving head; yet the inference is not to be drawn; 
that baptized households are, of course, actually mem 
bers of the church. The household of Abraham, b 
virtue of the natural relation which he bore to them, 
were under his government and care: but it does not 
appear, that they were all, of course, in the sainé 
Covenant that he was, because the token of God’s 
Covenant with fim, was applied to them: neithe 
does it appear, that any of them were, only as the 
exercised the same faith that he did. Neither is 
any where said in the ew Testament, that baptize¢ 
households are in the same Covenant with their believ: 
ing parents. There are no scriptural grounds, then, 
on which the chureh-membership of baptized housed 
holds can be founded. Nor is there any semblance o 


a 


61 


an argument to be brought for it, but what is derived 
from the Sinai Dispensation, which, the Apostle says, 
has already waxed old and vanished. Suppose it 
were so, as some have stated, that circumcised chil- 
dren, whether they understood the meaning of itor | 
not, might eat of the passover : yet, it follows not 
from thence, that baptized children may partake of 
the Lord’s supper, until such time, as they manifest 
faith for themselves, and are capable of discerning the 
Lord’s body.* When, therefore, the question is. ask- 


-* Tt has been a favorite notion with some, that the passover was an 
4nstitution, of the same nature, and had the same design, as the Sacra- 
‘ment of the Lord’s Supper. And now, say they, inasmuch as all who 
“were circumcised, whether old or young, were to eat of the passover ; so 
it follows, of consequence, that all such as are baptized, are to partake 
of the Lord’s supper.—That all who were circumcised, were directed, 
‘under the Sinaitic Dispensation, to eat of the passover, and that even 
‘small children, who knew nothing of its meaning, did actually partake of it, 
the writer is not disposed todeny. Butif it be so ; the-assertion, that it 
had the same design as the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, is an untruth, 
and therefore the consequence, which is drawn from it, must be unfound- 

ed. What was the passover designed for? It was designed, 1. To serve 
as a memorial, that the houses of the Israelites were passed over by 
the destroying angel, while all the first born of Egypt were slain. See 
Exod. xii. 26. And it shall come to fuss, when your children shall say 
unto you, What mean ye by this service ? That ye shall say, it is the 
sacrifice of the Lord’s fassover, who passed over the houses of the 
children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Eguptians and deliver- 
ed our houses. What has the Lord’s Supper to do with this? 2. The 
Beet served, for the time being, .as a substitute for their ordinary food. 


ee Exod. xii. 3, 4. They shall take to them every man a lamb, accord- 
4ing to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house. Andif the house- 
hold be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his 
| house take it, according to the number of the souls ; every man, accord- 
ing to his eating, shall make your count for the lamb, What has the 
‘Lord’s Supper to do with this? 3. The passover, whether the Israelites 
understood it or not, had a mystical meaning, considered as a type. It 
was atype, of what? The Apostle explains it, as being a type of Christ. 
For even Christ our fissoveris sacrificed for us. 1 Cor. v. 7. Qa this 
ground, then, it stands upon a level with all other types; such as the ark, 
the altar, the high priest, the ashes of an heifer, the scape-goat, or the 
“brazen serpent. All these, and a thousand other things hada typical 
“meaning : but what has the Lord’s Supper to do with these ? The pass- 
over was to be celebrated only once a year ; in the first month, irom the 
fourteenth day, until the twenty-first day of the month. And then, it 
“was to be eaten ina peculiar manner. Ye shall eat i with your loins 
girded, your shoes on_your feet, and your staff in your hands : and ye 
shall eat it in haste. What has the Lord’s Supper to do with this ? 
“The Lord’s Supper was not designed to commemorate the exedus from 
Egypt ; nor to serve as a substitute for ordinary food ; nor is’ it to be 
_ pers as a type. It is simply an institution, designed to keep the 
leath of Christ in remembrance, to serve as an expression of communion 


i 
U 


62 


ed ; at what time is it suitable for a person baptized it n 
infancy, to be admitted to church privileges ; to come” 


to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and to bring hi 
household, if he have any, to the ordinance of Bap 


ible eroleasiah oF his own faith, ‘ane enter into cov- | 
enant with God, as Abraham did.* RE ce se 
5. Baptized households, who reject the ‘brhice of “i oy 
gospel and continue impenitent, must incur peculiar) 
guilt. They who never had the privilege of any pa- 
rental instruction, still having the law of God written” 
in their hearts, having only the common light of con-7 
science, are inexcusable for all their sins. ‘The heathen, 
who never even so much as heard of the gospel, are 
without excuse, ‘‘ Pour out thy fury upon the heath- 
en, that call not upon thy name.” How great then 
must be the sin and guilt of those, who have not on- 
ly been born ina land of gospel light, but brought up — 
in Christian families ; where they have had line upon © 
line and precept upon precept ; where they have been 
taught, not only by precept, but by example; who 
have not only been brought to the ordinance of Bap- 4 
tism, but have been the ‘subjects of daily prayer, o 
which themselves have been the witnesses ; who have : 


with Christ and his church, and is subject to its own peculiar = 
We have no more reason then to say, that the Lord’s Supper comes in 

the room of the passover, than we have to say that it comes in the room — 
of the manna, upon w hich the people fed in the wilderness, or of Aaron’s— 
rod which budded, or of the ram skins dyed red, with which the tent of 
the tabernacle was covered. 


* If there be any who still insist upon calling baptized hopelie 
eens of the church ; it is very desirable, that they should define, 
precisely ,and intelligibly, what is meant by their being members. Are 
they members by their own voluntary consent as their parents are? This 
is not pretended. Are they in the same Covenant of Grace with their 
arents, whereby their salvation is rendered certain ? No. This neither. 
s it meant, that being under the government and care of believmg pa- 
rents, they are favored with peculiar advantages for instruction, and 
that all the members of the church, when they act in character, wi 
co-operate in affording it? This is just what the writer means. On this 
ground, there will be no disagreement between us. Still, howeve J 
call them members of the church, is thought to be rather an 1 unhappy oe 
pression, because it is not generally understood in such a sense; 
would, consequently, be likely to convey to the minds a samy a iden 
fhat was never intended. 


63 


had so many counsels, warnings, expostulations, and 
entreaties, during the whole period of their minority, 
-and all evidently dictated by the tenderest parental af- 
fection, and the sincerest regard to their welfare ; if af-_ 
ter all the means that have been used§with them, they 
still refuse the calls of heavenly. wisdom, and choose 
the road that leads to death ! This remark, I am sen- 
‘sible, would come with greater force to the con- 
‘science, if parents were more faithful to their house- 
holds. But if there are any, who have such parents 
as Abraham was, they must be of all sinners the great- 
est, and the most miserable, unless by turning to the 
Lord, they become the children of the Covenant. 

_ 6. We learn in the review of’ this discourse, in 
what sense, the covenant which God has promised to 
make with the house of Israel in the last days, isa 
mew covenant. It is a new covenant, not as never 
having existed before, but in comparison with the 
Covenant of Sinai. ‘ Behold, the dazs come (saith 
the Lord) whenI will make a new covenant with the 
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not 
according to the covenant that I made with their fa- 
thers, in the day when I took them by the hand, to 
lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they 
continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them 
not, saith the Lord.” In comparison with the Sinai 
‘Covenant, then, it is called a mew one: but yet, when 
the subject is duly considered, it will be found to be 
the same Covenant, which God had made with Abra- 
am, four hundred and thirty years before the Sinai 
Covenant had any existence ; and which will still sur- 
ive, till time shall be no more. When God took his 
eople, by the hand, tolead them out of Egypt, he 
ave them the Sinai Covenant to prove them, and to 
how what was in their hearts. ‘The experiment fairly 
proved, that they would not continue init. Andin 
onsequence of their disobedience, they have been re- 
jected of God, for a long period of time. But, now, 
God promises with regard to their scattered posterity, 
that he will make a new covenant with them : that is, 


64 i 


instcad of proposing to them the Sinai Covenant ag: 
he will carry into execution the Covenant which he 
made with Abraham, when he promised that he 
would bea God to him, and to his seed after him, 
throughout théjr@generations. ‘* For this is the cov= 
enant that I will make with the house of Israel, af. 
ter those days, saith the Lord, I will put. my laws 
into their mind, and write them in their hearts : and I 
will be to thema God, and they shall be to me a. peo- 
ple.” The new covenant, then, is only the old .Adra- 
hamic Covenant, which some are so fond of explo. 
ding, calledto remembrance again, and carried more 
extensively into effect. pe 
7. What admiring views must we have of the. ex- 
tensiveness, uniformity, and consistency of the Cov- 
enant of grace ! Some have supposed that when God 
entered’ into covenant with Abraham, nothing far- 
ther was contemplated, than the personal benefit | a 
Abraham, tozether with a few of his natural descen 
dants, and that only in regard to temporal blessings, 
On this ground it has been urged, that when some 
of his natural posterity had been brought into posses- 
sion of the land of Canaan, and when God had conde- 
scended to reign over them,- a little while, in the ch 
acter of a political sovereign ; then, every ‘thing was 
accomplished, that was stipulated inthe promise. 
Others wiil admit that spiritual blessings were promi- 
sed; but still they will have it, that these blessings 
were bestowed, entirely upon the ground of a legal 
covenant: that God was pleased to justify Abraham 
and some of his natural posterity, by their works + 
but in process of time, grew sick of his own plan, 
brushed it all aside, and introduced a new plan of sal- 
vation by grace, in the stead of it. Into what a wil- 
derness of confusion, would such representations lead 
us 2? What a low, miserable idea would they give us, 
of the wisdom of God, and of his purpose of grace, 
in the work of redemption ! ! But when we primp 
those false representations aside, and look at the Cov4 
enant of Abraham, as it is stated in the scriptures of 


“65 


truth; we behold a stately edifice rising into view, fair, 
and of goodly proportion, and sufficiently capacious 
to contain the whole household of faith. We seea 
plan brought forward, that is worthy of the infinite 
wisdom of God ; we see it carried into execution by 
all the dispensations of divine providence; and we see 
all the promises of his grace, still pointing forward, 
to the full and final accomplishment of the same grand 
design. Such ayiew of the subject as this, makes 
the work of redemption look like the work of God; 
it makes the bible look like the book cf God ; and it 
-makes the church look like the House of God, the pil- 
Jar and-ground of the truth. 

8. It is of great importance, when we read the Old 
‘Testament scriptures, that we carefully distinguish, 
between, such things as were peculiar to the Sinai Dis- 
-pensation, or such as were only of a temporary use, and 
such as were not. Some there are, who, when they 
vare.informed, that the old covenant, or the Sinai Dis- 
pensation, is abolished, would wish to take occasion 
‘from thence, to plead an unbounded indulgence, in 
the neglect of every duty, and in the commission of 
_eyery sin. Especially, if the precept, or the prohibi- 
tion: be, found in the Old Testament scriptures. Ask 
them, why. they do not observe the sabbath ; they will 
tell you, it belonged to theold Dispensation, and is done 
vaway. Ask them, why they do not attend to the du- 
.ties which they owe to their households ; why they do 
not dedicate them to God, and instruct them in the 
principles of religion ; they will tell you, these. things, 
also, belong to the old Dispensation, and are all done 
,away- And‘so with every thing else for which they 
have no -liking, they have only to say, it belonged | 
.to the old, Dispensation,. and then they think them- 
uselves fairly excused. If such persons continue to go 
on, as they have begun, I shall expect they will soon 
»tellus, that all the, commandments of the decalogue 
are done away, with the Sinai, Dispensation, and that 
smow under the clearer light of the Gospel, lying, 
eswearing, stealing, and ssi eas adultery, are only 


66 ’ 

2 
standing fast in that liberty, wherewith Christ hath 
made them free. A shorter course than this, to evade 
duty, and justify ungodliness, Satan never invented. 
But however men may endeavor to confound things to- 
gether, which are perfectly distinct ; yet the difference 
will still remain. The Sinai Covenant being only of a 
temporary use, has answered its design and ceased = 
but every thing of a permanent nature still remains the 
same as before. The moral law, whatever use might 
be made of it in the Sinai Dispensation, is stillthe 
same unchangeable rule of life, that it was before. 
The Abrahamic Covenant still remains the same that 
it had been before. The relation betwen parents and 
children, and their reciprocal duties, being of a per 
manent nature, are the same as before. And the in- 
stitution of the sabbath still remains the same that it 
had been from the creation of the world. ‘To infer, 
then, that all the Old’ Testament seriptures are abro- 
eated, because the Sinai Dispensation has ceased, is 
as unreasonable, as to infer thatthe whole statute book, 
which contains the laws of Connecticut, is repealed, 
because there Isa repeal of some one™ particular act 
with its provisoes. “Phe Sinai Covenant is one partie- 
ular, and it is but one, out of many contained in the 
Old Testament scriptures. This being expressly re- 
pealed and set aside, it 1s readily acknowledged, that 
we are not in subjection to it: but we have still to re- 
member, that the moral law is immutable ; that the 
Covenant. of grace is unchangeable, and that all the 
promises, which it contains, are sure to be scorn 


plished. eg 
9. Shall we not readily feel, and acknowledge, we 
obligation we are under, not only to enter into cov: 

nant with God, but also to receive the token of ‘th 
covenant to ourselves, and to our households, agre 
bly to divine institution ? When God proposed to Ab 
ham, to give him a merciful token of his Covenan 
had Abraham ungratefully refused to receive the t 
ken, would it not have been the same, as to declare, ii 
the strongest manner possible, that he would not 


o 
cept of the-Covenant? Or if when God proposed, that 
this token should be applied to his household, as a con- 
firmation of the promise that he should have a nume- 
-rous seed, throughout all future generations, who _ 
should share with him in all the blessings of the Cove- 
nant, he had refused to apply the token of the Cove- 
nant to his househould, upon the idle plea, that some 
of his household were only servants bought with-his 
money, some of them unbelievers, and some of them 
in infancy, so young as to be incapable of knowing 
what was transacted ; would it not have been the same, 
as to declare, in the strongest manner possible, that 
he did not believe any such promise ? Would he not - 
have acted out, completely, the character. of unbelief ? 
And instead of being called, as he now is, the father 
of the faithful, would he not, with more propriety, 
have been styled the father of unbelievers ? In what 
light God views such a delinquent, may be learnt 
from Gen. xvii. 14. That soul shall be cut off from his 
people ; he hath. broken my covenant. If, then, the 
‘same Covenant is still existing, and is proposed to us 
for our acceptance, though attended with another to- 
ken, having the same significancy, and to be applied to 
similar subjects ; if knowing all this to be the scriptu- 
ral statement, we still wilfully refuse to receive the to- 
ken; have we not reason to conclude, that we also 
shall be cut off from the family, from the Covenant, 
and from the blessing of Abraham ? Who but a stu- 
pid unbeliever, if he have aright understanding of the 
nature anddesign of the institution, canlive in the wilful 
neglect of the ordinance of Baptism ?—Who but an un- 
believer, if he have a right understanding of the prom- 
ise, which secures a succession of the seed of Abraham 
throughout all future generations, can neglect the bap- 
tism of his household, as a token“of the continuance 
and perpetuity of the same promise? And who but 
an unbeliever, or one who has no sense of moral obli- 
gation, would wish to live in the neglect of those du- 
ties, which he owes to his children and household aiter 
him, and which this application of the token is design- 


if 


63 


ed to keep in remembrance ? But alas, what a lamen= 
table neglect! How many there are, who nevér so” 
much as receive the token of the Covenant to them=) 
sélves ? How many that never apply it to their housé-— 
holds, and are, therefore, only half baptized ? How’ 
many that leave their households entirely out of view, 
and never even so much as make the attempt to teach” 
them the fear of the Lord ? How many, who, though 
they have brought them to the ordinance of Baptism, 
are still cruel asthe ostrich, and look after them no 
farther ? To what is all this neglect to be imputed 7” 
Is it ignorance ? Is it infidelity 2? Oris ita deadly leth-7 
arey 2? Where will this negligence end ? What will 
become of parents and children both, if they never 
accept of God’s Covenant, to become entitled to the” 
jlessings and privileges of it? It is time we had read! 
our bibles. It is time we Aad had an understanding of 
our duty. It is time we had reduced it to practice.” 
I will conclude this discourse, then, with the exhorta-— 
tion of the Apostle Peter, “‘ Repent, and be baptized” 
évery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for th 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your 
children, and to all that are’ afar off, even as many as" 
the Lord our God shall call.” : 3 


Zs 


eae 


’ 


owe | ake, 
> Speman var tened 


VAR. PRs Se | te 


APPENDIX. 


I. 


AS the Sinaitic and Abrahamic Covenants have 
often been confounded together, and have even, not. 
nfrequently, been represented as being one and the 
same covenant, only differently dispensed ; perhaps it 
may not be wholly useless, to subjoin the following 
iarks of difference between them. 

1. These two Covenants differ in respect to time, 
the Sinaitic Covenant had no existence previous to 
the exodus from Egypt. The Abrahamic Covenant 
was confirmed of God in Christ.430 years before, and, 
or substance, had been dispensed from the days of 
paradise. . 

| 2. They differ in respect to their promises. The 
Sinaitic Covenant promised only temporal blessings. 
The Abrahamic Covenant promised eternal life. I will 
Ibe a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee, through- 
ut their generations. Now God is not the God of 
ie dead, but of the living. 

3. They differ in respect to conditionality. The 
Sinaitic Covenant was a conditional one. The bles- 
sings promised were supended upon the obedience of 
those who were the subjects of them. The Abraham- 
ic Covenant was absolute and unconditional, God 
himself engages to see to the full.and complete cxe- 
cution of it. I will exceedingly multiply thee. I will 
be a Godto thee and to thy seed after thee. 1 w// write 
my law in theirhearts. I will be to them a God, and 
they shall be to me a people. 


70 


4, They differ as it respects a surety. The Sinaitic 
Covenant had no surety. If the people themselves fulfil- 
led the conditions prescribed, then they were to be the 
subjects of the blessings proposed. But they had no 
surety, to see that the requisite conditions te 


performed. But. the Abrahamic Covenant, or the 
Covenant of Grace, has a surety. By so much was 
Jesus made the surety of a better covenant. ea 
Vil. 22. £ 
5. They differ in respect to their extent. The Siz 
naitic Covenant was made only with the Israelitish 
nation, including the few proselytes that might be in- 
corporated with them. But for any other nation beside 
them, that peculiar Covenant was never designed. The 
Abrahamic Covenant extends, not only to the natural 
descendants of Abraham, but to all other nations wh 
become the children of Abraham by faith. Accordin: 
to that which was spoken, so shall thy seed be. Rom 
iy."18; ‘ Pe in 
6. They differ in respect to their duration. The 
Sinaitic Covenant was only temporary ; zmposed till the 
time of reformation ; but after that, this ministration 
of death was abolished. It decayed; it waxed old ; 
it vanished away. But the Abrahamic Covenant is 
everlasting. The law which was four hundred and 
thirty years after, could not disannul it. It extends to 
all ‘believers, and, consequently, must endure for 
ever. hasied al 
7. They differ as it respects their accomplishmen 
The Sinaitic Covenant, by the house of Israel in 
general, to say the least, was never kept ; and as there 
was a failure in the performance of the conditions, the 
blessings contemplated were not conferred. - Whic. 
my covenant they brake, and I regarded them not, saith 
the Lord. But the Abrahamic Covenant not being 
suspended upon any condition to be performed by men; 
but upon the absolute promise of God ; and the Son! 
of God himself being a surety to see to the execution of 
it; in this Covenant, there never hath been, and/never’ 
can be, the least failure. God always hath remember-) 


71 


ed, and always will remember, his holy covenant to 
perform the oath which he sware to our father Abra- 
| ham. Abraham, then, shall never fail of having a seed 
throughout all generations, and the law of God epna 
certainly be written in their hearts. . 
_ 8. They are called, in Scripture, by different names. 
The one is called old ; and the other a new covenant. 
The one is called the aiiicieeaaa of death ; the other 
the ministration of the Spirit. The one is called a bond 
maid, the other a free-woman. These are the two cov- 
enants, Gal. iv. 24. 


II, 


As the Sinaitic and Abrahamic Covenants have 
sometimes been blended together, and considered as 
being only one covenant, when in reality they are two; 
so on the other hand, there has sometimes been 
an endeavor to make a distinction between the Abra- 
hamic Covenant and the C ovenant of. Grace, where no 
distinction exists; and in this way also, many errors 
have been introduced. ‘The Covenant of Grace is in- 
deed called a new covenant, in comparison with the 
Covenant of Sinai; but that it is the same as the 
Abrahamic Covenant, will be abundantly evident to _ 
any one, who will only be at the pains to compare these 
two Covenants, as they are called, together.—On this 
particular point, the words of a late writer are cheer- 
fully quoted : 

“«'The promises of the Abrahamic Covenant res- 
KE pected a natural and adopted seed ; so do the prom- 
'“ ises of the New Covenant. 

_ “The promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were 
‘absolute, securing the holiness of those on whom 
“« they terminated ; and so are those of the New 
Covenant. 
“« In the former, sovereignty, in determining the ob- 
« jects of mercy, was expressed. 5 ; and so it is in the 
‘“Jatter, ne 


72 


«The latter/hdlds forthiand. sotvtabathadideseeeiial 
“of faith; a righteousness without works ; then 
‘imputation of sin ; so does the former. i 

«The Abrahamic ‘Covenant was the ministration | 
“the Spirit ; and so is the New ‘Covenant. ris 

“« The former broughtithe person, :inqwhom it to 
‘s.effect, into that relation, :that (God was actually) 
‘© God ; and so does :the latter. a 

«“ There »wasno:curse wrought into the Abrah m1. 
“Covenant ; norisithere any into:the New Covenant 

“ The fohager remains, or is everlasting; the: atte 
“‘ has the character, that it remaineth. r 

‘ The former was confirmed of God in Christ ; ant 
*¢ so is the latter. 

“The execution of the one, is also the execution 
“* of the other. 8 

*¢"We conclude therefore, with veltbans. ‘that, 

' ably to.all that -has been said upon the Abraha 
“Covenant, that and this are the same, ‘The promises 
~* objects, ariél Mediator of the Covenant are the same 
“ and the Covenant as it takes effect'isthesame. T. 
*« Abrahamic’ Covenant: was then’ transmitted, and 
“‘ ecuted, through successive generations of the Isra 
“ itish people, till the Messiah. *Andvas: certain as’ 
“* was, it is still in operation, and:is «yet to have am 
“* extended effect, with respect ‘both to the house 
‘Israel ‘and the! Gentiles, than‘has ‘hitherto been ¢ 
““perienced. The Sinai Covenant, different in all: th 
“particulars which have been mentioned, was - su 
“induced upon the Covenant which Gad establishe 
“with Abraham ; or, as-the ‘Apostle: ‘expresses. it, add 
$e * WW. hidréford then” he asks, Gal. iii. 19. “ servett 
“the law 2?” And answers, ‘It -was added because ‘o 
-“ transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom 
seu * the ‘promises were made.”  T7/l /the- seed shoul 
‘come. "This manner of expression proves, that the 
ine “Sina Covenant was to continue only till the comins 
~“ of the seed, the Messiah-; -and then we know i it 
“« abolished.’ ~ eoee ren hieae 
Austin’s View of the Chureh; P. 112, 1#3, 4 (4 


73 


lin The statement contained in the above quotation, is 
perfectly correct. If Pedobaptist writers would e/ways 
be willing to abide by it, without vainly endeavoring 
to draw inferences from that which is confessedly ex- 
ploded ; they would not only be freed from those 
charges of inconsistency, which are sometimes too 
justly brought against them, but when they came to 
the close of their work, they might say, as Mathema- 
ticians are accustomed, Quod erat demonstrandum. 


Til. 


As in other languages, so in £ngiish, it is sometimes 

the case, that the same word has various meanings. 

And as it leads to a gross error to understand a word 

one sense, when the writer in correspondence with 

his subject has used it in another; so in this way, it 

appears, that the word Covenant has sometimes been 

greatly abused. Anda mere playing with the ambi- 

ity of the word, has led to great mistakes. The 

word Covenant is used, 

* 1. To signify a voluntary agreement betwen two or 

more parties, when there are mutual conditions to be 

performed, and mutual promises to be fulfilled. This 

is the most common understanding of the word cove- 

Nant, as it is used by men. In this sense it is alse 
used, when we speak of the Covenant of redemp- 

tion. . 

- 2. Itis used to signify an absolute promise on one 
part, where there are no conditions to be performed 
on the other. Such was the Covenant which God 
made with Noah and the earth. See Gen. ix. 9. And 
I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with 
your seed after you ; and with every living creature that 
ws with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every 
beast of the earth with you; from allithat go out of the 
‘ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish 
my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off 
‘any. more. by the waters of a fiood ; neither shall there 


74 


any more bea flood to destroy the elirth. And Got 
said, this is the token of the covenant whieh I make be 
tween me and you, and every living creature that i 
with you, for perpetual generations -« Ido set my bow im 
the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant be= 
tween me and the earth. Such also was the Covenant 
which God made with Abraham, and which was af: 
terwards ratified and confirmed to Isaac, Jacob, David, 
and others. See Jer. xxxiii 20. where the Covenant 
' with Noah and the Covenant of Grace are evidently 
compared together. His covenant of the day and of 
the night isno more than an absolute unconditional 
promise. So is his covenant with Jacob and his seed. 
And such also is the new Covenant which God will 
hereafter make with the house of Israel and with the 
house of Judah. All absolute, all unconditional, and 
as certain of accomplishment, as that the succession 
of day and night will continue till the end of thé 
world. 3 

3. The word Coverant is used to signify a law or 
commandment. See Deut. iv. 13. And he declared un- 
to you his covenant, which he commanded you to pers 
form, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon 
two tables of stone. Inthis sense, persons may be uns 
der a covenant, without their consent, as well as with. 
For Israel were under obligation to obey all God’s 
commandments, whether they consented or not. ; 

It is possible that the word Covenant may be used, 
in other senses beside these. It is probable, however, 
that, in all such instances, it is used in a figurative 
sense, and that an allusion to one or the other of these 
may be easily discerned. / 

But if the word Covenant has so many various sen- 
ses ; then, whenever it is asserted that baptized house- 
holds are in covenant,-it is very necessary that we 
should be informed, which sense of the word is inten- 
ded. Are they merely subjects of law? Are they 
children of the promise ? Or are they in covenant by 
their own voluntary engagement ? Were this distinc- 
tion to be made, it is conceived, that the question 


75 


concerning the standing of baptized households, would 
_be relieved from no inconsiderable embarrassment. Is 
it not indeed, a matter of regret, that any should ever 
have occasion to charge Pedobaptists with contradict. - 
ing each other, in any such istance, when upona 
‘more thorough investigation of the subject, it might 
_be made to appear that they have been disputing, not 
concerning a point of practice,‘ but only the bare 
meaning of a word? But, Reader, you must faithful- 
Jy examine for yourself. Farewell. f 


THE END. 


eats 
wt an DAL iy 


oes Pieters 


; 
+0 

tae 

-— 


re 
Be: 
| 


‘ & TED 
PEDOBAPTIST CATECHISM 
SCHEDULE 


HOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS; 
TOGETHER WITH 


SCRIPTURE PROOFS 


RELATIVE 
TO THE SUBJECT AND MODE 
® OF 
BAPTISM. 


et 3 
BY DANIEL DOW, 
PASTOR ©F A CHURCH IN THOMPSON, CONNECTIGNT. 
ES SS 


WORCESTER : 
PRINTED BY THOMAS & STURTEVANT. 


Oteeereesecenacs 


+, 


No. G 


ig Fe ei 
ets x aah 


i: ny 
oe 


, 


SHOULD any be inquisitive to ask, why this little 
vamphlet is sent abroad, especially, considering the nuraer- 
tus books which have already been written upon the sub- 
ect whereof it treats ; the public are desired to accept of 
he following reason. There was wanted in this region a 
jook, containing a just statement, of the Subject and Mode 
f Barrism, that was Ist. scriptural ; 2d. short ; 3d. cheap 5 
- methodical ; 5th. easy to be understood; 6th. free 


m all personal abuse, and 7th. conciliating. If the fol- 
owing Schedule shall be found, in any good degree, to pos- 
hess these qualities, the design of the Author will be an- . 
swered. \ 


Thompson, September 21, 1307. # 


ie f “ ; THE 
PEDOBAPTIST CATECHISM, 
‘ SECT. L—THE CHURCH. | 


Question. WHAT is the Church ? 

Answer. The Church is two fold, visible and in- 
yisible ; and each of these is also subdivided. The 
énvistble Church comprehends all that will eventually 
be the fruits of Christ's redemption, and_ consists, 
1. of the souls of departed saints, already in glory ; 
2. all such, as are united to Christ by faith, now liv- 
ing upon earth; and 3. all such, as shall be truly 
converted, throughout all future generations, till the 


to attend upon Gospel institutions. But the word 
Church is also sometimes used, in the scriptures, to 
signify a small collection of professed believers, 
who reside in the same vicinity, and who worship 
God together in a particular place. Men also have 
invented another use of the word Church, and have 
applied it to their particular denomination, as the 
Church of England, the Presbyterian Church, the 
Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, &c. But 
this use of the word Church is not found in the 
scriptures, 


end of the world. The visible Church compre- ™ 


hends all such, as have made a public profession of Hig oe 
heir faith in Christ, and are ina Visible covenant, ° 


* 


Yaa. a ee 
* i 6 | . . ; | 
2. When did the visible Church begin? = 
A. The visible Church began, as soon as there 
were any believers in Christ, who ya is them 
to attend upon divine institutions, The Be e 
Church began then, as early as the family of Adam, 
‘Probably, Adam and Eve were believers, There 
was certainly a gracious promise, revealed ta them; 
that the seed of the woman should bruise the head 
of the serpent, and it is not unlikely, that the coats of 
skins with which the Lord God clothed them were 
the skins of beasts, slain in sacrifice, according to 
divine institution, as a figure of the same thing. If 
so then Adam and Eve at that time composed a vis.) 
ible Church. But however this. might be, there) 
was certainly a visible Church, as early as the days 
of Abel, for he brought an acceptable offering by) 
faith, which implies a divine institution ; for had-not} 
God instituted it, it could neither have been done by’ 
faith, nor accepted. From the days of Abel, there- 
fore, down to the present time, we may expect, ta 
find a visible Church. Gen. iii. 15. Gen, iii, 21, 
Gen. iv. 4. Heb. xi. 4. 
. 2. Has the nature of the visible Church eve 
been altered ? Es hina 
A. The nature of the visible Church has nev- 
er been altered, as to its object, or the faith, which: 
God requires, in order to salvation, There never’ 
has been but one Mediator revealed, between God? 
and man, and but one way, of being savingly inter- 
ested in him. » Though the patriarchs believed in 2 
Savior to come, while we believe in one, that is al- 
ready come; though greater light may be afforded’ 
to the Church in latter, than was enjoyed, in former: 
ages; and though God may vary his institutions, 
and his mode of instructions, according to differen 
times and circumstances, yet the visible Church has 
always been, for substance, one and the same thing,” 


, 
/ 
: 
7 
4 
7 
' 
é 


| ” 


iz. a body of men, united together, in a visible cov- 
enant, to attend upon divine institutions. I. ‘fim. 
i. 4 Gal. iii. 19. Acts, iv. 12. I. Cor. x. 4. Rom. 
xi ° 4 
2. What change took place, in the circumstances 
of the visible Church, when God entered into coven- 
ant with Abraham? 

A. The promise of the Savior was again ratified 
andconfirmed. 2. His lineal descent was more par- 
ticularly pointed out, viz. that he should descend from 
Abraham. 3. A new token of God’s covenant was 
instituted, viz. circumcision: And 4. It was also 
promised, that the Church, which then existed, in 
the family of Abraham, should increase beyond all 
calculation, equalling the stars of heaven, for multi- 
tude, and should embrace many other nations, as 
well as many’of his own natural posterity. Gen. 
xxi. 12. Gen. xii. 3. Gen. xvii. 5.10. Gen. xy: 
5. Rom. iv. 16, 17, 18. 

- 2. What was the covenant, which God made 
with Abraham? 
4. The covenant which God made with Abra- 
ham was, for substance, the same covenant, which © 
xisted, between God and believers, before the 
days of Abraham, and the same covenant, which 
exists, between God and believers now.—Abraham’s 
Covenant was the covenant of grace. 
2, How does it appear, that Abrahams coven- 
ant was the covenant of grace ? 
A. It appears that Abraham’s covenant was the 
tovenant of grace, because he was not justified by 
he deeds of the law, but by faith. He believed the 
record, which God gave of his Son. He saw 
Christ’s day and was glad. And, beside all this, 
they who now believe in Christ, and are accepted in 
the covenant of grace, are expressly said, to walk in 


ab 


the steps of. Abraham: “Rom, iy. 2: 3. Joh L. Wilh 
56. Rom. iv.12. eit hae 

2. What was the order of t the process, x 
God entered into covenant with Abraham 2? o 

A, Abraham believed first, and then he1 receiv. 
ed circumcision, as a token of God’ s covenant, and 
as a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he 
had.—Rom, iv. 11. 

2. To whom was the rite of ¢ circumcision to 
applied 2 


A. Though circumcision was a token of God ’g 
covenant, with Abraham, and a seal of the righteous. 
ness of the faith, which he had; yet it was to be aps 
plied to all his household, whether children, or sér- 
vants, and even to infants eight days old. Gen. xvi < 
12,.13. Gen. xvil. 23, 24, 25, 26, induc y 
2. How does it appear that circumcision was a 
tohen of the covenant of grace? ; 
A. It appears that circumcision was a token 

the covenant of grace, 1. because it is expressly de. 
clared, to be a sign, or seal, of the vighteoustie 
which is by faith: And 2. because there is nothin; 
else it could possibly have been a sign of. It couk 
not be a sign of a covenant of works; for, as befor 
observed, Abraham was not justified by such a co 
enant, It could not be a sign to-distinguish Abra 
ham’s natural posterity ; ; for his servants bough 
with his money were to be circumcised as well a 
his own children. And beside, there was afterwar 
provision made for the circumcising of proselyte: 
from other nations. _ It was nota sign, that Abraha 
and all his natural posterity should possess the land o 
Canaan ; for this they all of them never did. possess. 
nor ever will. Yea, Abraham himself ‘was no mo 
than a sojourner in it, and according to the testimo 
ny of Stephen, never owned so muchas to set hi 
foot on.—See Acts, vill. 5. Circumcision, theres 


eee 
i 9 


wee: not only a token of the covenant of grace, 
jut there is nothing else conceivable, of which it 
guild be a token. | 
| 2, Why should there be a token of the covenant, 

9 be applied to his children and servants, any more. 
han to his flocks and herds, or any other property — 
shih he possessed ? 

A. The token of the covenant was applied to 
lis children and servants, 1, because they were ca- 
iable, of becoming subjects, of the same covenant ; 
wut his flocks and herds were not. 2, There were 
pecial duties, which he owed his household, to in- 
truct and guide them in the ways of religion, 
vhich this institution might serve to impress on his 
aind and keep in remembrances And 3. The tok- 
n ofa merciful covenant applied even to infants eight 
ays old, might afford a comfortable intimation, that 
ae mercy of God may extend, even to such as die 
| infancy, and have never had opportunity, actually, 
accept, or reject the gospel. 
2. What good could it do, to apply the token of 
covenant, to an infant, that has no knowledge of it ? 
_ A. When God commanded it the performance 
f it must at least, have been an act of obedience, 
ind it is suitable, that the divine authority should be 
egarded. 2, When the token of the covenant is ap- 
lied to an infant, that has no knowledge of it, if it be 
one in faith, the child may derive as much benefit, 
rom this, as it can from the prayers of its believing. 
arent, when it has no knowledge of them. And 
5, if the token of the covenant administered impres- 
jes, upon the believing head of the family, a deeper 
id more constant sense of his duty, to train up his 
ousehold for God, certainly, to belong to such a 
amily and to be the subject of religious instruction, 
tust be a great privilege. 


“at 


tO 
5 What is meant by mee ae seed ? ‘ 


iayphds BOS 


ture, to siphtly alee different things. 1. His. nat t 
ye  ceeabapa 2. Christ, and 3, believers. 
2. In what passage of Seripeure does Abrahas | 
» seed signify his natural posterity? — My 
A. InRom. ix. 7. Neither because they are: | 
seed of Abraham, are they all children. | 
2. Where does Abraham's seed signify Chris, 
A. In Gal. ili. 16. Now to Abraham and fi 
seed were the promises made; he saith not, and 
seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy see 
which is Christ. ‘See Gen. xxi. 12. ee 
2. Whereis Abraham's seed used, to signify | 
lievers ? : 
A. In Rom. iv. 16. To the end, the promi: 
might be sure, to all the seed, not to that on 
which is of the law,. but to that also, which is of t 
faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. A 
again Gal. iii. 29. If ye be Christ’s, then are ye 
braham/’s seed, and heirs according to the promise , 
2. In what sense is Abraham's seed use a 
Gen. xvii. 7. And I will establish my covenant, 
zween me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in tht 
generations, for an everlasting covenant, to bi a ‘; 
to thee, and to thy seed after thee ? q 
A. Abraham’s seed in ‘this ‘passage cann 
mean Christ; because it is spoken of many; | 
their generations. It cannot mean Abraham’s né 
ural posterity ; for of some of them, God says, } 
are not my people, and I will not be your Go 
Hosea, i. 9. The phrase, therefore, in this passag 
as there is no other alternative, must intend such > 
are the children of Abraham, by faith. — oe 
2. But how can Abraham and his spiritual el 
possess the land of Canaan, according to the promt 
Gen. xvii. 8. And I will give unto thee and co dh 


11 

lied after thee, che land, wherein thou art a stean- 
er, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting pos- 
 ‘ssion ? 

» A. If this promise be understood, as made to 
is natural posterity, it neither has, nor can be ful- 
Med. Abraham in his life time never possessed it. 
lor did any of his natural posterity possess all the 
nd of Canaan, for many generations after. And 
iough, in process of time, some of his descendants 
ame into possession, yet even these were afterwards 
}jected, and the land of-Canaan, at this very day is in 
ae of the Gentiles. So far, therefore, is this 
Tomise from being an objection to Abraham’s seed, 
n this passage, intending his spiritual seed, that be- 
€vers are in fact, the only persons, to whom it can 
efulfilled. But to Abraham andhis spiritual seed the 
romise was capable of being accomplished ; either 
}, by the Jewish nation holding it in possessession, 
bra time, for the everlasing benefit of the Church; 

r 2, by the land of Canaan, being a type of heaven, 

d thus ensuring, to believers, ‘an everlasting in- 
jeritance, in the kingdom of glory ; or 3, by all be- 
severs being actually brought, into a literal posses- 
ion, of all the land of Canaan, in the new earth, and 
iter the first resurrection, as some have conjectured. 
As it may, we may safely trust, in the power and 
pithfulness of God, that he will, assurdly, accomplish 
IL his promises, in his own due time. , 
| 2; Inwhat sense was Abraham the father of all 
m that believe ? 

A. Abraham could not be the father of all them 
at believe, by natural generation; for many _be- 
devers never descended from him. Abraham was not 
he father of all believers, by being the first believer ; 
for there were a number of believers before Abraham. 
Nor was Abraham the father of al! believers by 
yeing the greatest of all; for amongst them that 


ha) 


be 


"an ensample, to all succeeding eter that tl 


12 
were bor of women there had’net arisen a ; 
than John the Baptist, and yetthe least, in the ki 


dom of heaven is greater than he. Abraham co 
be the father of all them that believe, only by be’ 


should walk in his steps. J 

2. In what sense was Abraham to bethe fe i} 
of many nations ? a | 

A. Abraham was to be the father a many 1 
tions, in that the Gentile nations were to be broug 
into the same covenant with himselfi—Sce Ron 
iv. 12. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be 
grace, to the end, the promise might be sure, to 4 
the seed, not to that only, which is of the law, br 
to that, also, which is of the faith of Abraham, w 
is the father of us all. Asit is written, I PNR A 
thee, a father of many nations, &e. 4 

2. How was the covenant of Abraham affen 
by te Mosaic dispensation ? 4 

. The Mosiac dispensation did not affect 

ecw made with Abraham, at all. It by 1 
means disannulled, or superseded it, neither when) 
commenced, nor when it was abrogated. For th 
covenant, ehdich was confirmed before of God i 
Christ, the law which was four hundred and thi: 
years after, cannot disannul, thatit should make t 
promise of none effect. Gal. iii. 17. Whitey 
particular rites and ceremonies, therefore, God mig 
see fit to appoint under the Mosaic dispensation, 
whatever qualifications might be requisite, to a 
tend upon them, or however the Jewish nation o 
served them, whether according to the real desig 
of them, or not, our inquiries concerning the covet 
ant of Abraham have no need to be encumbere 
with them, Believers under the New Testamei 
dispensation are not directed, to walk in the steps: 
Moses, but in the steps of Abraham. And itis tl 


18 
ag of Abraham, not the Sinai dispensation which 
has come upon the Gentiles: 


ity eo was the covenenant of Abraham affect. 
ihesg »%) what is commonly called the Gospel dispensa- 


“A Under the dispensation of the Gospel, so 
led, the oath which God sware to Abraham is still 
‘a aembered, and more extensively accomplished, 
¢ hand writing of ordinances being nailed to the 
2 085, the midle wail of partition between Jews and 
rentiles is broken down, and the way is now pre- 
pa ed, for all nations to be brought, into the same 
covenant, in which Abraham was.—Accordingly 
lohn the Baptist declared, that God was able, of 
hese.stones, to raise up children unto Abraham.— 
Our Lord commissioned his apostles, to go into all 
¢ world, and to disciple all nations. The Apostles 
etapa their commission declared, both to 
Jews and Gentiles, that the promise was to them 
an prtite their children. And it appears, according to 
incient promise, that this Gospel shall continue to be 
diffused, till the earth shall be filled, with the knowl- 
z edge of ‘God, and the whole family of mankind then 
€ xisting upon the earth shall become the seed, of 
4 blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with 
hem.—Ephes. i. 13 to 18. Mat. i, 9. Mat. 
XXviii. 19. Acts, it. 39. Isaiah, Ix, and Isaiah Ixv. 23. 
1. 2. Ifthe Abrahamic covenant be still continued, 
and all believers are to walk in Abraham’s steps, why 
as not the rite of circumcision, still to be administer- 
? 


. A. The reason why circumcission, the an- 
‘cient token of the covenant, is not now to be admin- 
istered is, because Christ by whose authority it was 
first instituted has now expressly repealed it; 

though the covenant itself is still continued, and an- 
other rite has been instituted, to. answer the same 


: 


‘4 


purpose, , which circumcision for ne i 
XV. Mat. xxviii. 19. 
2. How does it appear that | Tapriim is no 
the token of the covenant, the same as vcircumel 520 
was formerly ? -¥ 
A. When Abraham believed he received 
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
faith. When the Ethiopian believed, he receivee 
the outward rite of baptism, as a seal of the righ 
eousness of “is faith. When Abraham believed, 
he and his heusehold were circumcised. Wher 
Lydia believed, she and her household were baptiz, 
ed.—Rom. iv. 11. Acts, viii. 37. Gen. xvii. 10. 
Acts, xvi. 15. ‘s 
2, What evidence is there that baptism i is to be 
administered, to the households of believers 2 4 
A. The households of believers are to be bap. 
tized, 1, because the households of believers were 
circumcised. 2. When Christ commissioned his a- 
postles, he directed them, to teach, and to baptizi 
all nations. And though children are a very nu 
merous part of all nations, yet he made no excep- 
tion. It may safely be concluded, therefore, that 
when all nations shall receive the Gospel, this coms 
mission may be fully executed, and all nations, 
without the exception of an individual, be baptiz. 
ed. Beside, it appears, that the apostles so unde 
stood their commission, and practised accordingly ; 
for they actually. did baptize* households, and that, 
where we have no account, of any one’s faith, b 
of the head of the family. More than this, where 
only one of the parents was a believer, they declar- 
ed the children, in some sense, (it could certainly 
be no other, thana dedicated sense) to be hol 
And farther yet, our Savior himself, to discounte- 


; 


" 


* Paul says he did, And J bapsized also the household of Stephanas 


Cor, i. 16. 


ti ike 


fance, forever, all such; as forbid little children, to 
be brought to him, expressly and solemnly declar- 
ed, of such is the kingdom of God. From which 
expression, let it be construed, in any sense, of 


which it is capable, the propriety of applying the to- 


I: 
| 


| ind are sure heirs of the kingdom of glory ; beyond 
all question, they are suitable subjects, to receive 
I-he token of the covenant. Or 2, does it mean, 
jyhat such children as are brought in the arms of 
jpthers belong to the visible Church, by being com- 
plete members of it ; in this case- also, they are suit- 
able subjects, to receive the token of the covenant. 
Or 3, by their being of the kingdom of God, are we 
to understand, that they belong to the Church, only, 
by being under the government and instruction, of 
believing parents or guardians ;_ that they belong to 
the kingdom of God, only as Abraham’s household 
did, which appears to be the true sense; still they 
are suitable subjects, to have the token of the cove- 
vant ‘applied to them. For, Abraham is the father 
of us all, and all the blessings, which were compre- 
hended in his covenant, have come upon the Gen- 
iles.—-Mat. xxviii. 19. Acts, xvi. 15. Acts, xvi. 33. 
t. Cor. vii. 14, Luke, xviii. 16. Rom. iv. 16. Gal, 
ii, 14. 
2: But if baptism be designed, to subserve the 
same purpose, as circumcision, why is baptism ad- 
ministered to females, to whom circumcision was not ? 
A. To determine the propriety of any Gospel 
rite, we need only to be informed, of the will of 
the divine institutor. The same authority, which 
instituted circumcision at the first, afterward repeal- 


ed it, and instituted baptism to answer a similar 
purpose. ‘The same authority directed, that all ra- 


| 
| 


| 


AM... 


tions should be discipled and 
ing either children or females, _ 
ther informed, that the apostles b 0 
men and their households, but also omen. —/ 
Wiii, 12. Acts, xvii 15. - | 
2, Why may not baptism be sallbsinisrte: ; 
other houscholds, as well as to the on | 
those who enter into full covenant ? ; 
A. Circumcision and baptism were | both te 
kens of a covenant made with believers. — Whe ¢ 
therefore, there is no real faith professed, ‘Or: no re 
al covenant entered into, by the head of the family 
to apply the token of the covenant, either to him | 
his houschold, would be a false token. It would 6 
doing what Gad weer instituted. Abraham firs 
believed, and then the token of the covenant wa 
administered, both to him and to his household, a 
a sign of the ‘righteousness of Ais faith. If we, am 
Abraham/’s children, we shoul or in his steps. — 
Rom. iv. 11. 12. oe 
2. What is the believer's privilege, i in havi } 
his household baptized ? 4 
A. ‘The believer in having his biniioeiiehl ed } 
tised hath 1, the privilege, of a token of mercy t 
himself. 2. He lath the privilege of approaching 
Ged, in an ordinance, which God himself hath im 
stituted. 3. He hath the privilege, of looking | 
God, for a blessing upon his offspring, and upon a 
such, as are committed to his care. 4. He hath the 
privilege, of being thus assured, that some. ori A, 
braham’s spiritual seed will be found, amon 1 
rising generation, and peradventure, in his owt 
household. Add to this, 5, he hath the great priv. 
ilege of all the present comfort and _ satisfaction, 
which can flow from an act of obedience. } 
2, May not a parent pray for his childres 
instruct them, and guide them in the way of saloa 


a 


Ongias well without baptizing them, as with ? 
h fea ; Ee 
\ 4. There is a possibility, that a parent may 
m many duties, which he owes to his house- 
/ without baptizing them. But God saw fit, 
} appoint this ordinance: And.it is not probable, 
hat the duties involved in it will be performed so 
h Well, while this is neglected. It is possible, that.a 
erson may remember Christ’s death, without. at- 
tnding the Sacrament of the Lord’s supper. But. 
thrist knowing how prone we are to forget, saw it 
jcedful, to command his disciples to do this in re- 
nembrance of him. And it is not likely, that a 
erson will remember Christ, as he ought, while he 
wes in the neglect of it. ‘Though, therefore, it is 
ii rely possible, thata person may perform the du- 
vies, which he owes his household, in many respects, ~ 
vithout attending to their baptism, yet it is not at all 
#ikely, that he will be so impressed, with a sense of 
Wis duty, as he ought to be, while he neglects to 

bresent. his houschold before the Lord, according to 
ivine appointment. 

| 


x 


2. What are the evils, which are- attached te 
he denial of household baptism?) ' 


me A. The evils attached to the denial of ‘house- 3 
old baptism are 1, either a culpable ignorance,* or 


fl 


w wilful neglect, of a divine institution. 2. There 


ll probably be a correspondent neglect of those 
uties, which the ordinance of household baptism is, 
designed to keep in remembrance. ~3. The con- 


exion and harmony of the Old and New Testa- © 


} —_* This phrasé is not used as aterm of reproach, but from the necessit 

i as ; nn od Oniede he en y 
pf the cafe. If the writer be honest, in his own sentiments, even upon the 
most charitable construction; he must suppose that they who differ fromm 
fea rt 3 : eh ky ; 

hin » Must some how or other, be in want of more light, upon this sub- 
t, however enlightened they may be in other respects, Learned men on 
gme particular subjects are found to be ignorant. Paul was brought up at 
he feet of Gamaliel, and yet through inattention, was ignorant of Christian« 
ee ae Pptioath Br ; ae ; 

pty. But if we are ignorant of a point, clearly revealec, in the scriptures, 
four ignorance must in some degree be culpable, however we may optaim 


| mercy, by after repentance as Paul did, 
| a @e 


| 


Mag 


ment will not: be diécerncaayneee ¥ 
. plan will be represented, as inconsistent 
and the objections of infidels will be 
_ strengthened. 4. Instead of -graffing the Geni 
Church, into the true olive tree, amongst the 1 7 
branches, which were never broken off, there will 
a vain attempt, to set out a scion, in the grow 
where it can never prosper. And 5, all who thi 
endeavor to build up a human invention must s 
fer, at least, so much loss, as to have all this wot 

hay and stubble burnt up, were they | ‘themsel: 
be saved, so as by fires ‘Voare ‘4, 


Si “ dy e 


SECT. IL—BAPTISM. 


2, WHAT is the meaning of the iad baptiz 

A. To baptize, in its original sense, signif 
40 wash,* but designates ne particular mode of was 
ing, whether by sprinkling, pouring, or immersic 
By consequence, for any thing, that appears from #1 
meaning of the word, there may be as many mod 
of baptizing, as there are of ine: Teele. 


* They who understand Greek, may if they please, Pride 
cons.—They who have no knowledge of Greek, may if they please, 
I. Cor. x, 2. where all, our fathers are said, to have been baptized, i 
cloud, and in the sea, notwithstanding it is said, elsewhere, that t Ni 

j through the midst of the sea, on the dry land, Nehemiah, ix. 11,—Th 
‘who are disposed to believe, what all honest crities in the "Greek testam 
tell them, may turn to “Mark, vii. 4. where it is said, that the Pharisees wh 
they come from the market éat not, except they be baptized. ‘The hor 
translators of the Bible have rendered, it washed, nadern e 
synonymous, —Reference also may be had to Heb, ix. 10, w : 
made, of divers baptisms, of which the ashes of an heifer, Sprateting the 
clean, scems to be afterward specified, as one. Our. translators wie a) 
this instance, given the word baptismpors a synonymous renderir 
it washings, And all right enough 5 for ih hg saa mei 
thing, it is ao matter which is used. 


j 


Phat is Gospel baptism ? 
aptism, according to the appropriate sense - 
it is used, as expressive of a Gospel ordi- 
signifies a washing with water, in the name of 
é Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
at. xxviii. 19, +4 . 
| 2. When did Gospel baptism begin ? ; 
|» A. Gospel baptism began, when Christ’ gave 
01 mandment to his Apostles, to go into all the 
jorld and to teach all nations, baptizing them, in 
se name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
‘oly Ghost. . Gospel baptism began then, after 
hrist rose from the dead, and not before. 
_ 2: Were there not other baptisms before this 2 
A. Yesthere were divers. Aaron and his sons 
jere washed, before the tabernacle, previous to their 
ping invested, with their pontifical garments. 
i ander the law of Moses, the subjects of various cer- 
nonial defilements must wash, and be unclean, tilk 
( en. ‘The Pharisees had a tradition, that when 
; ey came, from the market, they must not eat, till 
ey had first washed, or been daptized. And John 
fe forerunner of Christ had been so famous, for 
hptizing great multitudes, for a special purpose, 
at he obtained the appellation, of John the Baptist. 
ut neither of these was the rite of Gospel baptism, 
hich Christ afterwards commanded his Apostles to 
Iminister.—Ley. viii. 6. Lev. xv. 5. Mark, vii. Ae 
eb. vi. 2. Heb. ix. 10. ; 
_ 2 How does it appear, that Fohn’s baptism 
as not Gospel baptism ? 
__ A. It appears that John’s baptism was not Gos- 
1 baptism, 1, because John was under the Old 
erent dispensation. 2. John did not baptize 
the name of the Trinity, as the Apostles were 
mmanded todo. And 3. John’s disciples, who 
id never heard of an Holy Ghost, were baptized 


1 
| 


i] 
i 


eain, the same as those, whol 
k Satvall “Mat. xis 13. Mat, 
Acts, xix. at the beginning. 
& Lf Fohn’s baptism ats 
‘was our Savior baptized of 
A. Our Savior was thus baptized, 
was made under the law, and it pacman, 
fil all righteousness. ‘The hand writing ofo 
ces, that ji is, the ordinances of the old di 
was never taken away, till he nailed»it to 
As Aaron, therefore, was consecrated, by a 
with water, at his induction into thé priestly offi 
so it became Christ, when he was now about thi 
years of age, to enter upon his public” ministry, 
a similar consecration, Gal. iv. 4, Mat, iii. 13, , 
15. Col. ii, 14. Luke, tik B32 ee Vida af ¥ 
2, Inwhat mode did Fokn' baptize a 
A. As John was under the former renin. 
the mode, in which he baptized, can be of non 
concernment to us, than the mode of any otheree 
monial washing, under the Old Testament.  Neit 
from the account, which we haye of Tobn's baptizi 
can the. point be determined, with any certain 
There is room to puess, @ at any-mode.” One 1 
guess, that as he baptized in Jordan, S 
immersion. Another may guess, that no 
img he baptized ina river, he ‘ht bap’ 
sprinkling or pouring. ma’ 5 nibs ‘that, in 
much as he baptized at Enoty,: "Bacative thavell 
much water there, the much water was't 7 
his baptism. Another may gwess, that in: 
as all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and raat edits 
round about Jordan attended his preachingy th 
water Was necessary, for the refreshment of 
# multitude, let him baptize, as he! » But. 
2li this on both sides of the question is nothin : 
Guessing, it is, of course, very little worth, = ney 


ht to be considered; as sufficient to demonstrate 
| any article, either of faith or practice. However, as 
| we are now upon the subject of guessing, one guess 
‘more may be ventured, which appears to be the most 
iprobable of all, and that is, inasmuch as Moses 
; poured water upon Aaron and his sons, when they 
| we > inducted, into their priestly office, it is proba- 
ble that John also baptized the Saviour, in the same 
mode, when he was publickly inducted into zs. _ 
~~ 2. What is the mode of that baptism, which 
Christ instituted, after his resurrection? = 
4S ‘A. In the commission, which Christ gave to his 
apostles, after his resurrection, he commanded them 
to baptize, and he told them to baptize, in the name 
of the Trinity ; but of the manner, in which water © 
should be applied, we are not there informed. 
| Either, therefore, the mode must not be essential, or 
else, it must be clearly gathered, from the subse- 
‘quent practice of the apostles, or from some other 
| Pp ssage of scripture, where it is evidently expressed. 
pMats xxviii. 19. _ 
| + 2. What is the first instance, of Gospel baptisin, 
ever administered ? . 
» A, The first instance of Gospel baptism ever ad- 
| ministered, of which we have any account, was on 
) the day of Pentecost, when three thousand were add- 
led, to the church, in one day. Acts ii. 41. 
} 2. Inwhat mode were they baptized ? 
» A. The account does not inform us, 
| 2. Whatis the probability? ~ 
A. Considering 1, that there was much time pre- 

| viously spent, in preaching ; then 2, that much time 
must also have been spent, in examining the quali- 
fications of the subjects; 3, that there were three 
) thousand candidates, to be baptized ; and 4, that 
- there were, probably, no more than eleven apostles 
to administer, Judas having gone to his own place, 


’ 
| 
f 


22 hog) 
and there being no account of any Ragan that 
bt) 


were authorised, the probability i those three 
thousand were baptized, either by sprinkling or pour. 
ing. > pall 
2. Which is the second instance of Gospel baptisem my 
concerning which, there are any circumstances relatedé 

A. The second instance of Gospel baptism, con. 
cerning which there are any circumstances related, 
is the baptism, of the Kthiopian eunuch, by Philipy 
recorded in the eighth chapter of Acts. 

2, Inwhat mode was the eunuch baptized? / 

A. The account does not informus. Weare >| 
deed informed, that they rode in their chariot, til 
, they came to acertain water, when by request ora the 
eunuch, after giving the evangelist satisfaction, they 
went down both into the water, both Philip and the 
eunuch, and he baptized him. As the baptism was 
per formed, i in some brook, river, or pond, which they 
came to, in the high way, and as they both went 
down into the water, both Philip and the eu- 
nuch, some have gwessed, that the baptism was 
performed, by immersion. » On the other hand, from 
the consideration, that they were then on a journe) 
that they were soon to separate, and it bein 
matter of necessity, that the baptism should be | 
formed, in the aforesaid river, brook, or pond ; oa 
sidering, also, that they being ona jonmney all cir: 
cumstances were very unfavorabie for immersion. 
considering, that Philip is said, to have gone down 
into the water, as well as the eunuch; considering 
that they must have gone down the bank, and proba- 
bly have stepped into the water, to baptize in any 
mode ; considering, that the manner, in which h 
was baptized, is not told us ; and, lastly, considering, 
that this is the only instance, in which, we have any 
account, of gospel baptism’s, being performed i in a 
river, hi ook, orpond; others have guessed, that the: 


Ms 
23° 


2 must have been performed, by sprinkling or 
pouring. But as this account, considered detachedly, 
affords room for conjecture, in favour of either mode, 
is not to be considered, as affording any conclusive 
ndence, in favour ofeither. All that we can gather, 
with certainty is, that here was an instance of Gospel 
baptismi, in some mode or other performed. 
| 2. Which is the next instance of Gospel baptism 2? 
A. The next instance of Gospel baptism is that of 
Paul recorded in Acts, the ninth chapter. 

2. How was he baptized ? 
_ A. The account does not inform us. It is only 
aid, after he went to Ananias, and received his sight, 
that he arose, and was baptized. There is no ac- 
fount of his going to any river, or even removing 
from the place, where he then.was. The account 
tries a probable complexion ‘with it, that he only 
t himself into a decent attitude, to receive the or. 
ance, by standing up, and that he was baptized, 
“sprinkling or pouring. 
2: Which is the next instance of Gospel baptism? 
_A. The next instance of Gospel baptism is that 
f Cornelius and others, recorded in Acts x. 
(Q. Inwhat mode were they baptized ? 
'A. The account does not inform us. — Peter 
reached, and the Holy Ghost fell upon his hearers. 
Phe question was asked ; ‘¢Can‘any man forbid wa- 
er, that these should not be baptized?” Peter com- 
anded them to be baptized, und no doubt they 
eréso. Butas.we have no account of their going 
rom the place, where they were, the complexion of 
account carries a probability with it, that water 
was brought into the assembly, and applied to the 
subjects, by sprinkling or pouring. 
2. Which is the next instance of Gospel baptism ? 
A. The next instance of Gospel baptism is that. 
of Lydia and her household, recorded in Acts xvi. 


. 
' 


OR 


1 4 cg were Le 
ys toenail ina place, whe 
be made. But there is not the’ 

‘ yor of the baptisms having been a 
one mode, rather than another. * 
prayer was wont to be made was in 
side, as many of the Jewish 
But as none on the one hand hares 
ing an inference from this circumstance, n fi 
sprinkling or pouring, so on the other hand, the 
no more probability, that the payer ne dn 

* tered by immersion, because the’ house 
they were assembled stood by” 
that every person was bapa in eerie, 

ever he went to the place, where Wa rp ma wont | 
be made. * & MPa dts bc 
‘ 2. Whichi 2s se fet instance of Gospel bapti sth 
i Di The next instance of Gospel baptism is the 
the Gaoler and his household, recorded in’ the s sa 
xvith chapter of Acts.) 9 © ha dha halt 
2: How were they baplizeg eh Sh Ree a oem 
A. ‘The account does not inform ws." ‘But as 
was done in the night season, ciréunistances wou 
lead us to con ‘ecture, that they were. baptized 
sprinkling or potriee rather chat pri mersion. 
2. Are there any other’ instances ¢ Gospel bc Ss 
left upon record, in the practice of the apostles?” ™ 
. A, Nas. there i is an account in the vite’ ¢ har 
of Acts, of a number, being baptized in Sama 
both men and women, who it appears | were con 
ed, under the aba of Philip. Pa 
‘tions, in his first epistle to the Corinthi 
ter, his having baptized ‘Crispus, Gaius, anc 
household of ‘Stephanass But i of th 
instances is there any circumstance rélated, 1] 


25 ° 


ght lead us to form the least conjecture, with re. 
d tothe mode, in which baptism was administer- 


4 


2 Are there not some other passages of scripture 
from which the mode of baptism may be inferred? 

1h A. There are passages, which speak of believems 
deing buried with Christ, by baptism, into death. 
See Rom. vi. 2, 3. Col. ii. 12, These have fre- 
quently been quoted, in proof of immersion. There 
ire also other passages, which speak of sprinkling 
any nations, and sprinkling the house of Israel, 
with pure water.” See Isaiah, lii. 15. Ezek. xxxvi. 
a5. ‘These have as. often been quoted, in proof of 


prinkling. But as all these are figurative expres- 
sions, they will be as irrelevant, in termining the 
mode of baptism, as any other figurative expressions, 
fi like import, such as being planted with Christ, 
deine crucified with him, or being dead with him, 
ec Rom. vi. 5, 6. 8. Gal. ii. 20. 
2. Of what use will profane history and human 
wthorities be, in determining this question ? 
_ A. By recurring to the writings of men, we may 
earn, how men have differed, how they have wran. 
sled, how they have vilified and abused each other, 
ind how even Christian brethren have, sometimes, 
allen out by the way, and separated from each other, 
where there was no just cause for separation ; and if 
tuman authorities were sufficient, it is possible, that 
both Anabaptists and Pedobaptists might find some 
espectable men to keep them incountenance. But 
ifter all, the scriptures are the only rule of faith and’ . 
wactice, and it would be cruel indeed, to send a per- 
on. of ordinary leisure and capacity, into the wide 
ilderness of human opinion, and through the dark 
ies of antiquity, to form his sentiments, concerning 
vine institutions. He that hath leisure, and is ca- 
able of making proper distinctions, if he be dispos- 
D 


go) 


' 


26 


oar very safely, in the road to en Ww 
only follow the light contained in the Bible. _ 
2. What is the whole amount. alot ete athe 3 


avor a immersion ? 


immersion is one solitary instance, of a person 9 1d, 
the Ethiopian eunuch, being baptized in a certa 
water, as he was journeying, and under such ci 
cumstances, as leave room to LUCSS, that the bap! iS 
might have been administered, by immersion, or 
any other mode. 
2. What is the whole amount of the evidence, . 
LE, of sprinkling or pouring 2? 
. The whole amount of the evidence i in cea 
sprints or pouring is a number of instances, 
baptism administered by the apostles, under suc 
circumstances, as involve a strong probability, 
it could not have been done by immersion, and co 
sequently must have been done, by apepakling 
pouring. Me 
Q. What is the conclusion which we are natural 

to draw from the mode of baptisms not being more ex 
a determined ? ved 
The conclusion which natural follows fre 

itis, premise is, that the Holy Ghost did not conside 
any particular quantity of water as essential to gospt 
baptism. And as in attending upon the Lord’s su 
_ per, bread and wine distributed without specifyin 


* Historical testimony is not neglected, because the practice 5 the Peds 
baptists would be likely to lose any credit. on ¢hat ground, but because # 
greater part of the people can have no access to it, so as to judge of the cred 
bility of facts, as related by different historians,and therefore could derive n 
satisfaction from it. And evenif they could, it might still be objected to  & 
being nothnig more, than tradition, and we must, after all, go to the ferig 
tures, to enquire What saith the Lord ? 


quantity, answers the emblem, for which it was 
ssigned ; so in regard to the case before us, water 
pplied by a proper officer and to a suitable subject 
the name of the Trinity is to be considered as 
‘ospel baptism, and sufficiently answering the em- 
lem, for which it is designed, whether the quantity 
£ water applied be greater or less. 
as How does the mode of baptism affect the subject 
f households 2 
_ A. The mode of baptism does not affect the sub- 
set of households in the least. If sprinkling be con- 
idered as being the more eligible mode, the house- 
old of the believer should be sprinkled, with pure 
vater. Or if immersion be considered as the more 
ligible mode, still the household of the believer 
ould be baptized, by immersion. For thus the 
oken of the covenant is to be administered, agreea- 
ile to the foregoing section, let the outward rite, 
vhich is instituted as a token, be what it may. And 
greeable to this view of the subject, the Greek 
‘hurch have administered, from time immemorial, 
nd still administer baptism to their households not- 
vithstanding they practise immersion. It were to 
9€ wished, that all others, who baptize by immer- 
ion, and who are sometimes fond of quoting the au- 
hority of the Greek church, would, in this particular, 
mitate their example. 
| 2. How great would be the error of a conscientious 
jerson, who should; at last, be found to have adopted 
z mode of baptism, which the apostles did not prac- 
ise. 

A. Admitting that such a person had formed just - 
deas, with regard to the name, in which baptism is 
o be administered, the proper officer to administer, 
ind also of the subjects to receive it, the error of 
uch a person concerning the mode could amount to 
10 more, than a wrong judgment, where there were 


2B 


y probable circumstances, by which 1e FU 
meat ele demi = Gal 5 See 
Ly 48 it, then, that t ey, who have pr ctis 

different modes of baptism, have i other. 
hard names ?  NePambae is b0 
A. The only. reason that can bie assigned for 1 
_ is, that they who have engaged in neon ovel 
_ have generally been, under the influence, of stre 
party feelings; there has been a desire, on bo 
sides of the question, ‘to prove more than could: 
proved ; and when a person was placed in such ¢ 
cumstances, and had no solid argument to produce 
what could a corrupt nature suggest more read, 
than to call each other Rantists, Diptists, Infa 
sprinklers, Duck dippers, Enthusiasts, and Hypocrit 
It is humbly conceived, that a little more candor, 
little more of the spirit of religion, a little more ge 
sense, or a little more good nae idein would he 
quashed all this.* y be am 


ae 


| 2. HOW far do Anais and Pedsbapi 
agree: ’ ’ 
A, As it respects all articles of doctrine, these tw 


* It is not designed to pass an indiscriminate censure, upon all writers, 
this subject,as being thus heated with party rage; it is just to remark,that'the 
have been some who are honorable exceptions. The above observation 
designed to apply only where they will apply. People arealso'to be 
ed against hastily concluding, because there have been so publ 
which exhibit much of the wrath of man, under a pretence of religio 
that therefore there is no more Christian charity, can ani 
than what these disputants have exhibited. This would’ as injudiciow 9 
to imegine, when we had heard a few, noisy Bac ; saeaeest 0 
tipling shop, about some public men or measures, WE sdieiaee esse 

a true statement of public affairs, and of the sober sense, # the whole natio 


2g 


nominations of people are as well agreed with each © 
er, as either of them areamongst themselves. In 
yoth denominations, there are persons of Calvinistic, 
nd Arminian sentiments, and with regard to these 
dints, there are persons in both denominations, who 
ire better agreed, with some of the other denomina- 
ion, than they are, with some of theirown. Were 
ye to compare an Arminian of one denomination, 
vith a Calvinist, who belongs to the other, the dif. 
erence would appear great. But it would be an un- 
jair comparison, between the two orders of people, 
cause if a comparison were to be made, between 
n Arminian and a Calvinist, of the same denomina- 
Jon, setting prejudice aside, the difference would 
ill be great. But if we compare ove of each de- 
Jomination together, who are both honest men, of 
sood information, and are both believers in the doc- — 
rines of grace, it will at once appear, that in all 
doints of the greatest importance they are agreed. 
(hey are agreed, ‘in the doctrine ofa Trinity in Uni- 
y- They are agreed, in the doctrine of the incar-. 
tation. They are agreed in the doctrine of the 
itonement. ‘They are agreed in the doctrine of de. 
wavity. They are agreed in the doctrine of regene- 
fation by special grace. They are agreed in the 
loctrine of progressive sanctification. They are 
igreed in the doctrine of the saint’s perseverance, 
They are agreed in the doctrine of the resurrection 
of the dead, and eternal j udgment. ‘They are agreed 
In regard to the end, both of the righteous, and the 
wicked. They are agreed with regard to the nature 
wf Christian experience, and the practice of moral 
uties. They are agreed that baptism and the 
Lord’s supper are special ordinances, instituted by 
htist. And they are also agreed with regard to 
€ nature and importance of gospel discipline. 
Phey are agreed with regard to the character of 


2 
A 2 


. whole household, as a token of God’s covenant 1 wi 


30 


God, the character of Christ, and ¢ le chai 
man, both saints and sinners. An 
point, in which they differ, but simpl 
the outward administration of baptism. oh, ‘* 
2. How far do these two denominations ace 
regard to baptism ? 4 
A, They both agree that there is such an ore 
nance as baptism. ‘They agree that baptism shou 
be administered, in the name of the Father, and | 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. They agree th 
the only element to be used is pure water. Th 
agree that baptism is to be administered, only upc 
condition of faith professed, and that consequently. 
is believer’s baptism. They agree that baptism 
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but tl 
answer of a good conscience. And that notwi tl 
standing a good conscience may be answered by 
when done as an act of obedience, and as expressi 
of the Christian’s faith; yet that baptism in itse 
saves no man, without faith, whether he be baptizet 
one way, or another. : 
2. What is the whole difference, between the q 
denominations, concerning baptism ? : 
A, The whole difference between the two verity 
inations concerning baptism is 1, In what manne 
shall the element of water be ‘applied : ? And | 
whether the believer’s baptism is to be applied to h 


him ? | 

2. Do they who reject household baptism deny al 
the duties, which are implied in it? 

A. However there be some Christians, ‘who 
not practise household baptism, yet these will sti 
allow all those duties to be incumbent, upon hea 
of families, which are implicated init. They agr 
that believers do, in heart, give up their househol 
to God. They agree that believers ought to I 


31 


st their households, and to look to God for his 
plessing upon their offspring. And some Anabap- 
tists have gone so far, as fo bring their little chil- 
ren, and present them before the Lord, ina solemn, 
public manner, that Christ may bless them, though 
they cannot baptize them. They substantially agree, 
hen, in all the duties which household baptism im- 
per, though they deny, that the token of God's 
fevenant, with the believer, is to be applied to his 
household, to keep up a sense of these duties in the 
deliever’s mind.* 
| Q. Do Anabaptists and Pedobaptists believe each 
her to be Christians 2 , 
A. Pedobaptists believe, that Anabaptists are 

christians, because they open the doors of their 
“ommunion, and invite them to enter in. On the 
ther hand, Anabaptists believe many Pedobabtists 
2 be Christians, because they openly declare this 
elief, and frequently invite Pedobaptist ministers, 
preach for them, though they do not commune 
ith them. It appears therefore that the two de- 
ominations notwithstanding all their contentions do 
elieve, that there are some real Christians in both. 
nd, perhaps, notwithstanding all their differences, 
€re may be as large a proportion of real Christians 
the one as in the other. 
2: Why then do they separate, into two distinct 
hurches 2 


* Should an enlightened Christian in either denomination look round up= 
some individuals, in the other, who have very widely departed, from the 
‘der of the Gospel,and begin to inquire, <« Are these your people whom you 
esent as being so well agreed with us 9? Do they pay any regard to the 
sath ? Do they pray in their families ? Do they attend te Gospel disci- 
ai Do they not hold to the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, and suffer Jeze- 
I'to teach ? Have we not reason to fear, that even their religious meetings 
ve been turned into political cabals ? To this it may be replied, that it is 
ce design of the writer to compare the worst with the Jest, nor the worst 
the worst ; but the best with the best ; that is, he would compare to- 
ther sincere Christians of both denominations, who are disposed, accoré- 
g to the light they have, to walk in the order of the Gospel, 


“a 


men? For while one ie Lam of . Paul and anoth 


‘tism, as ‘a token of God’s covenant, with belie ve 2] 


ea 
$2 
‘A. For Christians to reject éach othe: 
munion, where they have mutt 
longing to the same spiritual” 
without warrant, however some 
others weak in faith, some babes i 
full grown men, some com el} 
others more enlightened. Certainly Ww" 
no such commandment from the’ Lor a Wel 
no such precedent, in the practice of 
Nor does the spirit of Christ ever influence pe pe 
8 to take sucha position so contrary to each oth 
herever it takes place, therefore,” it must bea 
counted ‘for in some other way. It must originate 
some remaining depravity, which ought to be ext 
pated, even when found amongst Christians. 
we assign.any better reason, than the = apostle F ur 
doth, when writing to the Corinthians, upon a sin 
lar subject, he saith, Are ye not carnal and walk 


Lam of Apollos, are yenot carnal? V Cor. iii. 3, | 4 

nat What is the conclusion of the foregoing sel } 
2 

. A. In view of the foregoing schedule, it appe: : 

to be the duty, of all enlightened Chris tians, 

speak their sentiments, with the greatest fran 

ness, and to inculcate the practice of household ba ba 


If it be a divine institution, it certainly cannot | | 
unimportant, or wilfully neglected with impunit 
To say, that it is such an ordinance, as our reas 
would not have dictated, or that the duties, ; 
are implicated in it, may as well be 
out it, is the language of unbelief, ou mi; mgt Ped 
pressed with the same propriety, 
Bie positive institutions. Neithal Stall ic 
nor the passover, nor any part of ek ene 
nor any positive institution, under the present di 


83 
pensation of the gospel, is such as we should have 
thought of appointing, nor is there one, amongst 
m all, but what the question might have. been 
ed, whether all those duties, which they were de- 


lie J) ¥ . - iy % 
i 
| 


hem? Might not Israel have remembered, how the 
lestroying angel passed by their habitations, when 
he first born of Egypt were slain, though the pass- 
bver had not been observed ? Might not a believer 
inder the former dispensation have anticipated the 
Neath of Christ, as the proper foundation of his ac- 
eptance with God, without bringing a victim to the 
tar ? “And since Christ’s death, may not the ‘be- 
lever!with the same view, keep Christ’s death, in 
erpetual remembrance, without attending the sacra- 
nent of the Lord’s supper? But all such questions 
$ these are nothing more, nor less, than ques- 
ions of unbelief. God certainly knows best what 
astitutions his people need, and it becomes them, 
heerfully to comply with them, even though the 
ise of them were not, immediately, discerned. To 
efuse a compliance is direct rebellion, and nothing 
an excuse neglect, unless it be unavoidable ignor- 
nee. Such believers, therefore, as have found 
criptural evidence for household baptism, ought not 
nly to practise it themselves, but, also, to hold up 
acir light, for the benefit of others. And such be- 
levers, as have not as yet adopted the practice, 
ught to examine, with caution, the reasons, why 
ney haye lived, in the neglect of it. Let the latter 
ake heed, lest they be found bringing such cavils 
nd objections against household baptism, as if ad- 
uitted would go te the exclusion, of all divine ordi- 
ances. et them take heed lest by setting the Old 


34 
and New Testament at variance,. they assume 
premises, as if true, would destroy the credit o 
Let them take heed, lest in the neglect of t 
tution, they not only neglect a.preat privilege; b 
grow unmindful, of those duties, which they owe 
their households, and which this. ordinance is d 
signed, to impress upon them. Let them take 
lest through: prejudice, and a vain tradition, rec 
from their fathers, they be found resisting the g 
of evidence, even when fairly exhibited, to the un 
derstanding. On the other hand, let such as hay 
outwardly, practised, according to this. institution 
take heed, that they do not live, in the neglect 
those important duties, without which, it is granted 
that the outward institution can do no more, thanin 
crease their guilt; by which means the subject 6 
household baptism has been brou ght into grea 
discredit, than by all the aimee that ever. ay 
been brought against it. But after all this is. ob 
served, if there be those, who under their pecul 4 
circumstances have been led, into a different train 
thinking, upon this subject, but still have mutua 
confidence, in each other, as being truly, and su 
stantially, grounded in the faith of our Lord 
Christ; is there not such a broad foundatio al 
agreement between them, as that they. may wall 
together, in love, notwithstanding their present dif 
ference of sentiment, in regard to the application @ 
water in the ordinance of baptism ? Can. they ¢ con 


and yet they reject each other ? Can they really b 
lieve, that they belong, to the same spiritual kin 
dom, and still combi toile each other, as thou | 
they belonged to two different kingdoms ? Can the 
be fully persuaded, that they shall sit down togethe 
in the kingdom of heaven, hereafter, and still re us 
to fellowship each other, and to sit down at the cot 


35 


junion together, here on earth? Can they really be 
‘satisfied, that they both remember the death of 
Christ, with the same gratitude, with the same faith, 
nd that they both receive the same supplies: of 
ace, and comfort, from him, and still refuse to 
ommemorate his death together, and share, in com- 
| a of the elementary bread and wine, whereby his 
death is shadowed forth? If such schisms as these 
‘exist, is it not time to inquire, whether it be not, 
entirely owing to prejudice, or whether it be not 
he case, that the wolves have scattered the flock : 
Alas, what unhappy separations between brethren ; 
and at the same time what strange coalitions! Look 
round you, brethren, and see, what sort of people ~ 
they are, whom you receive to your communion, 
notwithstanding their differences. You have re- 
eived, in both your denominations, some that are 
Arminians, some that are Socinians, same that are 
Nothingarians, as it respects the doctrines of grace, 
some that you stand in doubt of, some that never 
ought, in their present situation, to be admitted as 
members of any church, but they have agreed to your 
particular ideas of baptism, and so you make it do. 
But your real brother, whom Christ has received, 
who is with you, in all the doctrines of grace, who 
has satisfied you, in regard to his Christian experi- 
nce, whose life adorns the law, and who has gained 
the real fellowship of your heart, is shut out from 
the family, and refused even so much as the crumbs, 
which fall from the children’s table. And all this, 
only because of a difference of sentiment, concerning 
the application of water in baptism. If Christians 
Were not under some undue influence, from selfish 
motives, either in themselves, or others, could such 
a difference as this have ever been considered, as a 
sufficient reason, for a separation of churches, much 
less for all that animosity and contention, which have 


i 


such circumstances, that they are considered, asa 


notwithstanding they have been thus scattered t 


36 


existed, Rice these two dutehaebniena i 
schism id not originate, from such a source, 
does not the same awful distance remain be 
them, when plated, in circumstances, where 
selfish motives can no longer operate? Let a mis 
be proposed to Calcutta, to the Cape of Good Ho 
or to the islands of the South Sea, and Christians 
both these denominations can pray for the success 0 
it. Let missionaries from both these denomin na 
tions meet, in these distant regions, and they mee 
upon terms, of friendship and Christian. c 
And should either be instrumental, of bringing 
of the benighted heathen, to the knowledge of h 
Saviour, I question not, in the least, but they woul 
both rejoice together, that such an aécession h 
been made to the Redeemer’s kingdom. But i 
they be Christian brethren and friends, upon th 
shores of Asia, or Africa, why not upon the shores 
of America as well? Alas our party prejudices, oul 
party interests, and our party connexions have torr 
the Church asunder, and by this means, many indi 
viduals, who are, in heart, united, are aries i 


ing in opposition to each other. But real Christiar | 


the mountains, should endeayour to find out ada 
cognize each other, and see if the banners of th 
true Israel cannot again be distinctly and unitedh 
displayed. However worldly minded people maj 
contend, whether a meeting shall be statedly hele 
on this particular hill or in that neighboring valley, ¢ 
whatever might become of such teachers, as ca 
live no where, only in the fog, ifthe mist of conte! 
tion were to be suddenly dispelled, allthis is of ver 
little consequence, when compared with the grea 
and important advantages, which would result fron 
Christian union, It is desired, by i writer ot 


| - 


oa ; St 


hese sheets, that all his Christian brethren would 
hink seriously, of these things, and see to it that 
hey do not exert themselves more in impeding the 
/rogtess of each other, than they do, in promoting 
ae general cause of Christianity. Is it nota pain- 
i thought, that the visible kingdom of Christ should 
so divided, and the visible kingdom of Satan so 
enerally united ? The kingdom of Satan is divided 
gainst itself, and therefore cannot stand. The 
isible Church is divided against itself, and there- 
fm in its, present state it cannot stand. Yer 
mce more, I shake not the earth only, but also 
eaven. But is not the kingdom of Satan bet- 
sr agreed, as it respects their ultimate object, 
yan the visible kingdom of Christ ? In the cause 
f infidelity, people can forget their party preju- 
ices, and readily unite together. However va- 
lous they may otherwise be in their characters and 
suits, here they become confederate, and consult 
ether with one consent: ‘‘ The tabernacles of 
tdom and the Ishmaelites, of Moab and the Haga- 
ies, Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalehi, the Philis- 

es with the inhabitants of Tyre, Assur is also 
ined with them, they have holpen the children of- 
Cer Is it not time for all true Christians, to unite 
ogether, in opposing the progress of the common 
y ? And if we had a little more of the spirit of 
eligion, would it not be, easily, practicable? In a 
ime of religious revival, when the voice of the truth 
5 heard, how are these differences diminished and 
gotten? You can meet together, you can pray 
gether, you can rejoice together, your hearts are 
nlarged towards each other, and in expressing the 
incere effusions of your Christian affection, before 
ou are aware of it, you call each other brethren.* 


* Alletter, from an American gentlemen in London, dated May 20, 1807, 
d published in a late number of ®he Panopolist, is so congenial with the 
ntiments, here advanced, that the following extract from it cannot be with- 

eid. 


Gi Res 9b M SS ae 
38 oe 


But. when religion begins to decline, how do q 
ty spirit and selfish feclings again obtain the ascen 
ancy? Then you begin to say, this is my chure, 
and that is your church, I am of Paul, and I am) 
~ Apollos, and the more luke warm andindifferentj 
become; in the real practice of religion, the moi 
you are inflamed, with an unsanctified zeal, to stral 
gle all your weak brethren in their cradle. Oh, » 
a multitude of books have then been written, wh 
have answered no other purpose, but to turn off @ 
attention of people, from the scriptares of truth, 
bewilder the minds of the ignorant, and show ‘ 
depravity of the writer ! But if the spirit of religi¢ 
unites us, let us endeavor to keep the unity of t 
spirit. Be faithful, yet love as brethren. | 
them that are unruly, comfort the feeble mindet 
support the weak, be patient toward all men. | 
nally, live in ey and the ee of —. shall t 
with you. 


- 
“The last week would have been avery interesting week to you, had y 
‘been in London. It was the grand jubilee of serious Christians, throught 
England Perhaps there is no meeting, im: the worid, so interesting, a! as | 
meeting of the Missionary Society. To see thousands of private Christia 
and hundreds of Christian ministers, uniting on this delightful occasion, 
sight peculiarly grateful to every serious mind. * Friday morning, a 
Saviour’s Church, in the Borough, Dr, Draper of the Church of England | 
livered a truly catholic discourse from Mat. xxviii. 18—20, which I he 
with very uncommon pleasure. The collection was about 150). In the 
ternoon we went to Sion Chapel, to close the solemn services, in which 
had been engaged, by commemorating the death of our common Lord, 
celebrating together the riches of redeeming love, Can you conccive a m 
delightful sight, than two thousand five hundred Christians, of different 
nominations, sitting down at the same'time, at the table of their Lord 
thus publicly professing their attachment to: Jesus, and their love t 
another ? The Rev. Dr. Haweis, presided on this interesting occasion. 
eral ministers exhorted, severai engaged in prayer, and thirty or forty x 
employed in distributing the elements. The collection was 16o0l. Ti 
closed one of the most solemn and interesting scenes I ever witnessed, J 
ministers, I trust, have returned to their congregations more animated w 
zeal for the Redeemer’s cause than they were before? ¥ 
Does not this look a little like the funeral of bigotry ? Who would Bi 
wishthat the same spirit might cross the Atlantic ? 


FINES ae 


ss 


*F a * 
nite ed ou, ie ~. ‘ 
ratty aR TS,, 


tes « 
ghee sy! 
ie -ee: ve 
*.9 
*? 
. 
' 
s 
t a 


pi eit eat aa 


ts 
oe ee) 
yw io” 
(i! 
‘ 
s s/s 


(hp tala aD Catt at 
0 a 


BAPTISM 


ONE OF THE 


PLAINEST THINGS IN THE WORLD: 


ILLUSTRATED IN A 


DIALOGUE 


BETWEEN 


A FATHER AND SON. 


FoR 
THE USE OF CHILDREN. 


ee SS 


“rroM A CHILD THOU HAST KNOWN THE HOLY 
SCRIPTURES.”.....2 TIM, S. 15. 


NEW-YORK: 


PUBLISHED BY WILLIAMS AND WHITING, 
AT THEIR THEOLOGICAL AND CLASSICAL BOOK-STORE, | 
wo. 118, PEARL-STREET. 


WW) 


District of New-York, ss. 


BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the eighteenth day of | 

July, in the thirty-fifth Year of the Independence of the” 

(L. 8.) United States of America, WiLtraMs & Wurrinc ofthe © 
Se said District, have deposited in this Office, the Title of 

a Book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the © 

words and figures following, to wit : ‘a 

‘¢ Baptism one of the Plainest Things in the World: Illustrated in a Dia- — 
“logue Between A Father and Son. For the Use of Children— — 
“‘ From a child thou hast known the holy seriptures.”—2 Tim. 3.15. ~ 


In Conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, 
“An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by seeuring the Copies of © 
Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, — 
during the times therein mentioned,” and also, to an Act, entitled, ** An 
Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, an Act for the encouragement of 
Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Au- — 
thors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the times therein mentioned ; 
and extending the benefits to the Arts of Designing, Engraving and Etch- — 
ing historical and other prints,” | . 
} CHARLES CLINTON, 
Clerk of the District of New-York. 
rf 


DEDICATION. 


TO PIOUS MOTHERS IN ZION. 


A conviction that you regard the eternal welfare of 
your dear offspring, next to your own, has induced 
the author of the following dialogue, to inscribe 
it to you. It contains a feeble effort to assist you 
in the arduous task of educating your children, and 
guiding them in the path of life. Your opportu- 
nity and skill for the service, are confessed to be pre- 
eminent; and hence your obligations to the duty are 
deduced and made plain. It is in your power, by di- 
vine aid, to bless the world ; and render future genc- 
rations happy. By teaching your children the fear and © 
love of God—enlightening their minds with scriptural 
precepts—shewing them the relation they stand in 
to you, and the church of God, by baptism—praying 
with and for them in retirement—and letting them see 
your daily walk with God—you will so bend their 
minds to right courses, as, generally speaking, they 
will never relinquish them. They will be likely to re- 
ceive the special grace of God—be ornaments to the 


Bis 
Flee you wen toalias tae Tl 


of the faithful, is the ardent p 
sistant inthe labours ofthe 


awe ut? Mb eee 


: er oat. | | +h f leh soa 
te sis 0 ph Mankpyerews - pad 


Cre: Sh gf WMD ast ai ci 


weak 


i ? 
} 
fe ’ 
¢ 
Z 
¥ 
lk 
’ 
- 
wid 
- 
\" 7 


BAPTISM, &. 


Father. CHILD, do you understand Baptism ? 

Child. Yes Sir, Uthink Ido. It is one of the plainest 
things in the world. 

Father. Ah! What does it mean? . 

» Child. Ut properly means two things—a sign of holiness 
in the person who receives it—and also a seal of his cove- 
nant with God ; which is commonly called the Covenant of 
Grace. God has promised that whosoever believes in 
Christ shall be saved: Baptism, therefore, is the outward 
sign and seal, both of holiness of heart and belief in Christ ; 
and when any one takes it upon himself, being duly pre- 
pared, he does his duty, and will as certainly be saved, as 
that the Lord will fulfil his promise, God’s promise, Sir, is 
made to the belief; and the seal is enjoined as duty, to be 
performed afterward by the believer. 

Father. Child, was you ever baptized? 

Child, No Sir, not for myself; you had me baptized 
with the other children, when an infant, but this was no 
baptism to me, properly speaking, for I had no hand in it, 
nor had I any faith to seal. 

Father. What was done for you then, when I had you ° 
baptized, and the other children? 

Child, 1 was devoted to God, in the same sense as you 
devoted your own body to him; the same asif I had been 
a member of your body, a hand or foot; and so of the 
other children. We were all bone of your bone, and flesh 
of your flesh. Being separated from you, made no odds, as 
long as we still belonged to you, and were under your direc- 
tion, instruction and control, “When you devoted your own 


6 


body to God, you devoted all which belonged to you} and 


when you sealed your own faith by being baptized your- 
self, you only repeated the same seal of your faith, * when you 
had me baptized ; and each of your other children. You 
promised to do all in your power to keep your own body 
pure and holy, and to do the same for us also; and bring 
us up in the nurture afid admonition of the Lord. I was 
not made internally holy by all this, but oti init Boyt 
blessed advantages to become so. 
When you dedicated me to God, you set mé apart for holy 


uses ; and for this reason Tam considered as holy and clean: — 


like many things under the ceremonial law, which were con- | 


sidered holy, because sprinkled and set ‘apart for holy uses. 


Said the apostle to the Corinthians, “The unbelieving hus- | 


band is sanctified by the wife ; and the unbelieving wife is sanc- 
tified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but 
now are they holy.” A married couple are declared by God 
himself to be one fesh. When therefore, either the husband 
or wife is a believer, and is publicly devoted to God, ‘the 
unbelieving partner is devoted also, because legally incorpo- 
rated in the same body. Their children also, are holy in the 
same sense, because parts of a root that is holy. [myself being 
born of a believer, stand like a sprout in a root. “Says the 
apostle to the Romans, xi. 16, Jf the root be holy so are 
the branches. Do not mistake me, Sir; as I said before 

Ihave no idea, that I am made internally holy, by being 
descended from a believer ; or by what you have done for 


me; but only that J am laid under blessed advantages of 


becoming so. My advantages, considered as means of 
grace, are vastly greater than those of other children, who 
have not been dedicated to God by pious parents; and 
whose parents have not sealed their faith and vows, to 
bring them up for God, by having them baptized. While 
I experience the constant prayers, instructions, warnings, 
reproofs, and examples of my parents, (as the Lord does 


© 


Se ee ee ee ee 


7 


_ nothing in vain) I have greater reason to hope he will bless 
their endeavours for my conversion, than if I were born of 
heathen parents, and brought up like a heathen. The Lord 
himself loves my pious parents, and has said; “I will pour 
my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off- 
‘spring. And they shall spring up as among the grass, as 
willows by the water courses.” Is. xliv. 3,4. I rationally 
hope for my parents’ sake, whom the Lord loves ; but above 
all, for Christ’s sake, who has purchased my parents, and 
promised to pour his Spirit upon their seed ;—I say, I 
rationally hope from all these advantages, that I may, before 
I die, enjoy this blessed water of the Spirit, and be saved. 1 
do not pretend that my heart is morally better for being born 
under such happy circumstances. Privileges do not make 
me better ; but they obligate me to be better. So it is likewise 


with all the means God is using with other sinners. Means _ - 


in themselves alone; make no one better ; but they obligate 
all to be better ; and their obligations increase in proportion 
+to the number and richness of the means enjoyed. My heart 
is equally bad with an heathen child. Iam wholly dependant 
om sovereign grace, to enable me to use my privileges aright. 
_ I know, if Lam proud of what God has done for me, and. 
always trust to my privileges, I shall be eternally undone. 
_ Yet, Tam a moral agent; and as God works upon. moral 
agents by means, I have vastly greater reason to hope for 
his sovereign grace to be bestowed upon me, than if I had 
been born of wicked parents, and God had left me without 
these means. 3 . 
father. But, Child, as you seem to have hit upon some of 
__ the most important things, which were done for you, and en- 
gaged. to be done at your baptism, I wish you to explain, 
_ why the baptism you received in infancy, was not properly 
yours: and if not, what steps are to be taken to make it 
yours: 
Child. Sir, I hinted that I had no hand in the transaction, 
and had no faith to seal. Baptism, as I said, is the out- 


& 


ward sign and seal of internal holiness, arid am holy cove+ 
nant. When a person is renewed in his heart, by the Spi- 
rit of God, he is holy. This person is in a state of absolute 
salvation ; having passed from death unto lifes To persons 
in this state, all the promises of eternal life in the gospel 
aremade. ‘The covenant of grace, as addressed to sinners, 
is simply this—selieve and be saved: 'Those who were re- 
newed and made holy before Christ came, believed in the 
Messiah to come: those who have been renewed since, 
have believed in Christ already come. Holy persons, from 
the beginning of the world to the end of it, believe in Christ s 
and just as true, as that the covenant and oath of God can-— 
not be broken, believers will be saved. | Te 

You, my dear parent, being renewed os the Spitit of God, 
and hence being internally holy, and believing in Christ, you 
had something to signify and seal by your baptism. Water in 
its nature, is purifying and healings Hence it is used as an 
~ emblem of the operations of the Holy Spirit, in purifying your 
heart from sin, and healing its infirmities. Your baptism sie« 
nified this. It was likewise the outward seal of that internal 
covenant of grace, which you had previously entered. into, 
* between God and your own soul. This was all right for 
you, because God has directed his children to use this out- 
ward sign and seal, when they are convinced in their con- 
sciences that they are renewed. It was right also, for you to 
dedicate and give me up to the Lord, because he direeted 
Abraham, before Christ came, to put the sign and seal of 
his faith upon his children. And since Christ came, be- 
lievers under the ministry of the apostles, did signify and seal — 
the same faith with Abraham, and the same covenant of 
grace, by baptism ; applied first to themselves} and then to 
their households. All this was right enough for you to do. 
But here lies the point :—all those transactions were the 
fulfilment of your duty; not mine. In my infancy, I had 
no hand in being sealed with vour faith, or any thing about 


9 


it ; and alas! as I-have no reason to believe I was sanctified 
from the womb, and zt cannot be asserted I was in the cove- 
nant of grace, of course there was nothing in me of real 
holiness to signify or seal Surely then, inasmuch as I had 
no agency in the business, nor the least foundation for this 
outward sign, I am certain, it could not be my own baptism, 
properly speaking. 

But Sir, to come to your last request, viz. “What 
steps are necessary to be taken by me, to make this seal 
of your faith properly mine?” I would observe ; I must 
by my own voluntary act take it, or assent to it as the 
sign and seal of my own internal holiness, and faith in 
Christ : then it will be strictly mine 6y my own agency. 
You, my dear Sir, was baptized in this way. You lived till 
nearly twenty years of age under the cultivation of the 
kindest christian parents, before it pleased God to give you 
a new heart. ‘Then after being convinced in your own 
conscience, that you loved God and believed in Christ, you 
presented yourself before the church, God’s professing 
people, and there publicly professed your faith in the pre- 
sence of God, angels, and men; and acknowledged the seal 
of your parents’ faith, as the seal of your own. 'This pub- 
lic assent or acknowledgment, made it yours in the eyes 
of that God with whom you covenanted. Now, J must 
follow your example, in order to make the seal of your 
faith properly mine. Isaac, being circumcised the eighth 
day from his birth, as @ sign of his father Abraham’s 
faith, was not circumcised again to seal his own faith, 
when he became a believer : but he took it by assent ; either 

_ when personally engaged in public religious duty, or when 
he dedicated his sons Esau and Jacob, and sealed them with 
his faith. In the latter transaction his assent was absolutely 

_ necessary, (or to be circumcised again) in order to gualify 

‘him to place the sign of his faith upon his children.— 

Hence, if in fact, he was not circumcised again, (as no one 


2 


10 ee ; 


pretends) then his assent did: positively ooh hi head 
circumcision his own strictly : consequently, myvassent to 
my paternal baptism constitutes it my own’strietly ; and it 
would be very wicked to repeat it, or be ‘baptized: again. = 
Father. You have run on at some lengthy my Son; «and E 
confess I am gratified in finding your ‘mind so’ clear upon 
these points, about which there is so much confusion in 
these days; but your last assertion; “ that it-would be very 
wicked ta be baptized again, after being baptized in your 
infancy,” needs a strong reason: for you “*knew, many re- 
nounce their infant baptism as nothing apitaees and are 
rebaptized,..as they call it, for themselves. Date es 
Child. 1 am: sensible, Sir, we ought to-give: vit Sa rea- 
sons for all we.think or do in religion; but with me, ‘all 
_ strength in opinions and practice, consists in their conformity 
to the word of God. Vain is man’s doctrine—vain are the 
whims of men, to help out the deficiencies of Christ’s wis- 
dom, or the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, by the prophets and 
apostles. We may rely upon it, Christ, nor any of his in- 
spired messengers, forgot any thing in their communica- 
tions opon this subject. They perfectly knew.allieharacters, 
which would spring up, in all ages and. circumstances, and _ 
inserted just such instructions in his word, as. 
baptism plain ¢o the meek and prayerful; but not enough to 
guard the proud and curious from innumerable schemes’ of 
their own devising; and which look to them wondrous wise, 
The traditions of the elders, by which the law ‘of God was 
made void, were considered by their devotees,.as genuine 
improvements upon said law, and helped out its defects! 
You must permit me, Sir, to state, in order to answer your 
wish, that it would have been very wicked.in Isaae, after he 
became a believer, to have risen up and said, “JZ énow nl 
thing about what my father did for me, in my. infancy ; his 
circumcising me, as the seal of his faith and covenant with 
God, was nothing to mes I'll be circumcised for myself, ant 


il 


‘then I shall be satisfied ; “but I never shall be without. My 
_ -eonscience tells me, tis absurd to think of taking his circum- 
cision | by assent for the seal of my faith! No, Pll be circum- 
cased again.” Such conduct, I say, would have been very 
wicked in Isaac, as it would have plainly shewn that 
he thought he Anew better than the Lord himself, how to ex- 
press his faith and covenant with him; or that the Lord for- 
ot to reveal the most proper way tordo it; or had not been 
sufficiently explicit in revealing his will upon this point! 
All the saints would have deeply suspected, that Isaac’s con- 
science arose from his pride, and endeavoured to help out the 
deficiency of the diviné institute. In like manner, should 
I become a believer, for me to say, “I will be baptized 
again ; my infant baptism, which my parents performed for 
me, is nothing to me ; my mind never can be satisfied with 
this blind way, of taking their baptism by assent: my con- 
_ science tells me ’tis absurd. No, V’ll be baptized again.” 
So plain an impeachment of the wisdom of God would 
be shocking impiety, and very much diminish the evidence 
that I was a believer. Indeed were I of my own head, to 
go on and be baptized again, it would be a prophane act of 
will-worship, and totally invalid when done. As our Sa- 
viour told the pharisees in alike case, concerning their tra- 
ditions, Mark vii. 7, “‘In vain do they worship me, teach- 
_ ing for doctrines the commandments of men.” As there is 
no instance in scripture, of recircumcision to express a per- 
son’s faith in the Messiah, so there is no instance of 
rebaptism to express a belieyer’s faith in Christ. If the 
Lord has said, that one seal of his covenant is igecgae it is 
prophane for men to add another. 
father. But, my Son, are you certain that circumcision 
was absolutely meant to be a sign and seal of the covenant of 
grace? and that baptism means the same? 
Child. Lam :—Just as certain as that I understand Eng- 
lish. If plain scripture is the limit of our consciences, there 
can be no dispute here.” The apostle to the Romans, iv. 11, 


i2- 


says, * Abraham received the sign of citcumcision, a seal 


of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet ‘being 


uncircumcised.” Now follow his expressions +“ Abraham — 
received the sign of circumcision.”* Abraham had faith — 


in the Messiah above fourteen years surely, and perhaps 


forty, before any outward mark of it was. put upon | him. | 


“This faith,” said the apostle, ver. 9, “we say, was counted 


to Abraham for righteousness.” It being counted to him | 


for righteousness, renders it certain, that he was, in Christ, 


justified by it. He complied with his part of the covenant 


of grace, and enjoyed the promise of God that he should 


be saved. This was long before he had any outward sign of | 


it put uponhim. Ver. 10, the apostle asks, How was faith 


then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncir- 


cumcision? He answers, Wot in circumcision, but in uncir- 
cumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uns 
circumcised. If words are images of ideas, then the righte- 
ousness of faith which Abraham had possessed. in his heart 
for a length of time, was sealed by receiving in his flesh the 
sign of circumcision, And if sealing the righteousness of 
faith is not sealing the covenant of grace, then the words 
we use have no definite meaning: and it is only a mock- 
ery to Spain that we have the will of per “ to us in 
English. ° - 
Fuideicn: that circumcision meant heads of heart, or 
regeneration, as well as the seal of the covenant of grace, 
is equally clear. Said the same apostle, in the same epis- 
tle, chapter ii. 28th and 29th verses, “‘ He is not a Jew who 


7 


is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is 


outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly : 
and circumcision is that of the heart, 27 the Spirit, and not 


* The sign of circumcision was the mark made in his flesh, peculiar to. 
this rite; distinguished from all others. This mark, peculiar to itself in 
form, meant something. The next words explain its meaning :—a seal of 
the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised. 


13 


in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” 
Were all men under heaven to contradict the apostle, what 
would it avail? He positively declared, that‘ he is not a Few 
who is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which 
zs outward in the flesh.” But what did he mean? Did the 
apostle mean to say, that a Jew by descent and profession 
outwardly, is not a Jew by descent and profession out- 
wardly? And that the circumcision which is outward in 
the flesh, is not circumcision in the flesh? Dare any man 
charge the apostle with such gross self-contradiction? If he 
dare, he does it at his peril. But his plain meaning was, he is 
not a Jew in the sight of God, who has nothing but descent 
and profession of religion to constitute him a complete Jew : 
a real Jew is one who is what he professes, internally holy ; 
without this he is no Few. Neither is that circumcision 
which is only outward in the flesh : it must be attended with 
what it represents, holiness and faith, or it is not complete 
circumcision : accordingly, he declared positively, he is a 
Few who is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the 
heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is 
not of men but of God. If the apostle in these words did 
not pointedly declare regeneration or holiness of heart to 
be an essential thing to constitute a Jew, and a principal 
thing meant by circumcision, words have no meaning, 
at least tome. Any man who will face this text, and deny 
that circumcision meant regeneration, as one of its essential 
designs, is prepared to trample with his unhallowed feet on 
every sacred text which does not suit him. 

Equally plain is it, that baptism comes in the place of 
circumcision, and means essentially the same. Circumcision 


_ continued till Christ was crucified, and then immediately 
_ when he gave commission to his apostles to preach the gos- 


pel to every creature, he commanded them also to baptize 
such as believed, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 


and of the Holy Ghost. Mat. xxviii. 19. Baptism, as the 


¥. 
4 
m | 
. 


14 


sien and seal of believing i in Christ, began em ce 
céston ended, and was applied to the same sidbjeets : vi - 
Hevers and their households ; as in the cases of Lydia, 


Jailor, and Stephanus. The apostle, ' ing of Chr ist, 
Colossians ii. 14, says, “Blotting out the ‘handwriting of 
erdinances that was against us, which was contrary ‘to us, 
and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Cir- 
cumcision was among the rites, called the “ handwriting of 
ordinances ;” and continued to be the sign and seal of the 
covenant of grace, till Christ nailed it to his cross, and. i71- 
stituted baptism in its room. Holiness of heart was the 
same under both seals ; the nature of saving faith was the — 
same under both; and the same promise of salvation out-— 
wardly ratified by both. Hence, I am certain that baptism 
came in the place of circumcision, if words are signs of © 
ideas. Do not mistake me, Sir, I have not said that/bap-— 
tism has every outward appendage connected with it, which : 
circumcision had, but only that its essential meaning was 
the same; both were signs and seals of one eternal cove 
nant, which never can be broken or altered. . 
Some learned good men, through inadvertence hin) 
Rave fallen into the egregious mistake of thinking that 
John’s baptism was designed as the standing christian seal 
of the covenant of grace: but any child can see the absurdity 
(when he attends to it) of two seals of this covenant being in 
operation at once; which must have been the case, if John’s 
baptism were a divinely appointed seal of this. cove- 
nant. As the apostle has finished all dispute as to the time | 
when the ceremonial law ended, viz at Christ’s crucifixion ;_ 
and as this law, including circumcision, was of divine au- 
thority til then, (for then Christ took it out of the way) there 
must have been two divinely appointed seals of the covenant 
im operation at the same time, if John’s baptism were. the 
standing gospel seal: and John’s disciples would. not have 
Been baptized again, as we see they were, Acts XIX. 5. 


‘ 


‘ B 


- Hence, Sir, I am certainthat christian baptism began whew 
- Christ gave commission to his apostles after his resurrec- 
| tion to baptize in the name of the Father, and of: the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost ; and that this baptism came in the 
place of circumcision. I hope, Sir, these reasons are 
strong enough to satisfy any one, whose conscience is capa 
ble of being limited by the word of God. ; r 

»: Father. Indeed, my child, you talk strong, as young 
people are apt to do: and surely, if you are right, it is ne 
matter how strongly you hold to the right. But how came 
you by these bright views of this subject? 

_ ~ Child. Sir, you, with my dear mother, taught me as seo 
_ as I could understand words, my situation in this evil world 3 
and let me see my duty to God, and what his word said 
concerning baptism. You let the scriptures talk to me; 
you set them in order before me; I saw their connection, 
like a chain linked together ; my conscience was convicted, 
and never have I doubted since. 

Father. But child, may not all your present views be 
merely the effect of education? Suppose you had been born 
of some different sect, would not your conscience have been 
struck with their views of the subject, in opposition to what 
you now believe? 

Child, 1 confess Sir, an honest mind will be impressed most 
eich the greatest quantity of evidence which it sees, or 
thinks it sees from the word of God, in support of any 
‘point. Had I been born of sectarian parents, who were 
_ ever harping upon a few out-of-the-way texts, and putting 
_ their own comments to them to support their scheme; who 
had so much confidence in their own goodness, as to believe 
they were much holier than other christians ; and that God 
revealed the truth to them exclusively: had this been my 
situation, and no opportunity given me to examine for my- 
self, doubtless I should have been a sectarian: or it is pos- 
sible t might have been a bigot; depending wholly on what 


16. 


my parents taught me, and refusing to examine or know any 
more. In either of these cases I might have been miserably 
deceived: but neither of these situations have fallen to me 
Ehave had those texts set before me, in Which’ the nature and 
design of baptism were held forth: one scripture has ex= 
plained another, instead of human comments: And since: 
you sent me to school to learn English, and the tongues. 
in which the scriptures were written, I have examined for 
myself; I have considered it in-all its bearings, and am as well 
established on this subject, as Sir Isaac Newton was, where 
the north pole stood ; and so may any other child, whose op~ 
portunity has been as good. If the word of God has im- 
pressed my conscience, I have nothing to fear from education, 
but rejoice in it, and be thankful to the great Giver. 
Father. I did not, my Son, mean to hint that a correct’ 
education would endanger your settlement upon the truth, but 
only to see whether you were sufficiently guarded against 
trusting to your education, merely upon the authority of 
your parents, and instructors, without examining for your- 
self. Many children and ignorant people are not capable of 
examining for themselves, but take all upon trust. They 
have entire confidence in their teachers ; and let them be ever 
so wide from the truth, if they are only bold, and ‘assert 
roundly their points, these weak disciples will have their 
consciences stand with them in their errors. ‘They will 
stand invincibly strong; not becquse they have one solid | 
argument or text of scripture to support them, but because 
their consciences once saw things so, and they never have seen 
otherwise, and now shame forbids them to quit their ground. - 
Such disciples stand perhaps more fixedly than any others ; 
for nothing now hurts them. They feel the scriptures in 
general no more than ghosts would feel bullets. Standing on 
nothing but their first impressions from their teachers, they 
are self-exalted and abundantly established, because they 
are able to resist without the least conviction, the highest de~ 


47 


“monstrations of their errors. For. more than twenty years 
of my public life, have I had occasional intercourse with such 
invincible soldiers in the cause of men’s traditions 3 and of 
vallmen in the world, I should regret to see you, my Son, 
| one of these soldiets. But'as you seem to be sensible of the 
_ Place of danger, and as far as I can discover, well guarded 
against it, Tam satisfied; and hope you will remain stead- 
| fast, unless you have clear evidence from the word of God, 
‘that your present opinion concerning this subject is wrong. 
But, from a word you dropped, in statinga case, in which you 
: might have been a sectarian, you observed, that “had you 
been born of sectarian parents, who were ever harping upon 
a few out-of-the-way texts,” &c. I have an inclination 
to hear you tell what are some of those texts which you con- 
sider out-of-the-way, and on which some talk incessantly ? 
| Child. Sir, without burthening you with chapter and 
verse, I would observe, that every text which spéaks of 
\Fohn’s baptism, is out-of-the-way ; likewise, Christ’s baptism 
by Fohn; the baptisms of the seventy, whom Christ sent out 
to preach ; and the traditionary baptisms of the Pharisees. 
Any text referring to either of these, on which multitudes 
talk and worry, whether it relates to subjects, mode, 
or place, I consider as totally out-of-the-way, inasmuch as 
they were all wnder the ceremonial law, and never could be 
intended as seals of the covenant of grace. Evei child a 
‘see what John’s baptism meant, if his mother will turn hi 
to what the angel said to Zecharias, recorded by St. Luke, 
chap. ist, from the 12th to the 18th verse. Here after the 
angel had spoken of his birth, character, and success in preach- 
ing, he summed up the whole design of his coming, by say- 
ing, it was “to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” 
When he had finished this work, he was called off immedi- 
ately. This people were prepared for the Lord, by becoming 
penitents, and béing baptized to express it ; Fohn “ saying 
unto them that they should believe on him which should come 
3 


18 


after him,” that is, on Christ Jesus, Acts’xix. 4. John did 
not baptize a single subject in the name of ‘the Trinitys He 
said they must believe on him which should come after him, 
that i is, on Christ Jesus. This was the sum of what.he said 
attheir baptisms. And this same historian, in the same book, — 
chap. x. 37, has told us, that “the word which God sent — 
unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, . 
was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee 
after the baptism which Fohn preached.” After John’s — 
baptism was completed, and a people was made ready for the 
Lord, his business was finished, and he was taken from the 
world. ‘Then the Lord Jesus shone forth in his ministry, 
beginning at Galilee, Mark i. 14, as the object of faith ; in 
whom John exhorted his disciples to believe. And num-+ 
bers of these prepared people, were probably among the three 
thousand who sealed. their faith in Christ by baptism, in the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, on the day of 
Pentecost, after Peter’s sermon. Now the gospel dispensa- 
tion appeared in operation. The gospel seal of faith in 
Christ, as absolutely come, is applied to believers, but posi- 
tively was not applied by Fohn ; for Paul declared, that * Fohn 
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,-saying un- 
to the people, that they should believe on him which should 
come after him, that is, on Christ Fesuss” Hence it is certain, 
they were not baptized in Chris?’s name, nor in the name of 
the Holy Ghost ; which names are essential to the gospel seal 
of faith, or covenant of graces 'The consequence then zs 
just as true; as the bible is true, that John’s baptism 
was not christian baptism ; and we have nothing to do with 
it any more than any other rite under the ceremonial law- 
Christ’s baptism by John, likewise, was another of those di- 
vers baptisms, which St. Paul said were practised under the — 
law, Heb. ik. 10;* and with which we haye no concern. 


Ror 


* Bourkoyoigs translated washings: 


19 


@hrist was baptized, that is, washed, to introduce him into the 


_priest’s office. The same apostle declared to the Romans, 


Rom. xv. 8, “Now I say, that Jesus Christ was a minis- 


ter of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the 
promises made unto the fathers.”” He was a Priest under the 


ceremonial law, while circumcision was in force. Of course 
he must have had an introduction. John, his forerunner, was 
the man appointed by God to perform the ceremony. When 
Christ came to him for this purpose, he refused at first, be- 
ing struck with a sense of his majesty. But Christ encou- 
raged him, saying, “suffer it to be so now; for thus it 
behoveth us to fulfil all righteousness.” And then he washed 
him, as the law pointed out the manner of the ceremony, 
Exod. xxix. 4—xl. 12, 13. Ley. viii. 6. When Christ 
referred John to this law, for a warrant to proceed, we have 
no reason to doubt but he followed it strictly. But this was 
not all. It was foretold that Christ should not only be a 
priest; but should be a priest after the order of Melchisedec. 
As he sprang out of the tribe of Judah, (of which tribe there 
were no priests) the law respecting him was changed; (see - 
Heb. vii.) and he must have the immediate testimony of God, 
ratifying his induction into office, like Melchisedec ; accord- 
ingly, when John washed him, “the heavens were opened un- 
to him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like 
a dove, and lighting upon him. And lo! a voice from hea- 
ven saying, this is my beloved Son, in him I am well plea- 
sed.” This was after Melchisedec’s order; and took place — 
very near the close of John’s public labours. St. Luke says 
expressly, (chap. iii. 21, of his gospel,) Now, when all the 
people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being 
baptized, and praying, the heayen was opened, and the Holy 
Ghost descended, &c. Immediately after Christ was baptir 


__ zed, he was led into the wilderness to be tempted of the de- 


vil, where he tarried forty days. And directly after he re- 
turned from his temptation, he began his public ministry in 


20 


Galilee... St, Peter says, ‘the word which God sent unto 
the children. of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christy — 
which was published throughout all Judea, and began. from 
Galilee, after the baptism which ohn, preacheds?.. After this — 
scriptural statement of Christ’s baptism;)as essential to his 
induction into the priesthood ; that it was nearithe close.of 
Jobn’s ministry, after John had prepared,a peoplefor the 
Lord, and baptized. all who wished to be:)and:that Christ’s . 
beginning to preach was immediately after his temptation 5 
it would seem as if nathing. further need be said., If inspired 
words :could bind men’s consciences, surely these would; 
and. all would see that we have no more to do with Christ’s 
baptism, chan his crucifixion, or any other. par tof his. 
priestly offi ice.” But when, in addition to all this; we, come 
to look at the absurdity of supposing Christ to have been 
baptized, as John’s disciples were, with the baptism of nes 
pentance ; with a direction to believe on himself, (whereas he 
never was a sinner. or regenerated—or. had gospel repent- 
ance or faith) and. to suppose his baptism was a seahof, the 
covenant of grace; and performed inthe name of. the Tri- 
nity, (of course in his own name) and designed for our pat- 
tern and example ; while as yet, he was, anne ly 
circumcision,” and the whole was under the. 
This exceeds all. We pause with astonishment nidiniibaes 
tion” of a mind, which can admit for a moment, such abase-— 
less phantom for gospel doctrine....4 »-9) » sae ee oe 
All texts likewise, which speak of Christe. disciples bapti- 
zing before his , ‘nailing the handwriting.of ordinances .to 
‘his. Cross,” are, out-of the-way texts; with, which we have | 
nothing to do, only to place them with those which»were to 
prepare a people for the Lord.; they; belonged not to the | 
gospel day, but were “+imposed until the time of reforma: » 
tion.” And as to the traditionary baptisms of the Phoariseay' 
nothing can be said in favour of them, as examples for us, — 
unless we would set up their customs above the word of God. 


21 


And allarguing from their modes of baptizing their tables, 
brazen vessels, hands or bodies, before they eat their meals, 
(see Mark vii.) is as useless, as toargue from any other fables, 
Jewish or Pagan. Such texts can do christians no benefit, 
' except those who walk in their own light, out of the reach 

Ofimeripturess one ot. : my 

_ Father. Well my Son, it gives me pleasure’ to see you 
rightly divide the word of truth. This is. the only way 
to be’a consistent christian. A man may be a real christian, 
_ and vad@ycertain circumstances believe in transubstantiation, 
or the necessity of plunging all under water, in order to chris- 
tian baptism; but he never can make his belief fairly accord 
with the tenor of the word of God. . Nay, a man may be 
holy in heart-and be saved, although he should lose his un- 
derstanding, and believe in Jacob Behman, or Lodowic 
Muggleton, or even become totally insane. However, chris- 
tianity appears best in its own unmutilated order, and its 
ordinances'*placed exactly as they are laid down in the 
divine word. 

Child. Sir, Isuppose I know your mind perfectly upon 
this subject, having ever been privileged with hearing 
your remarks, But I should be glad to ask you two or 
three questions, and then beg leave to retire. What did the 
divers baptisms under the law import? What makes tender- 
‘hearted christians ever desire to be plunged? and what is 
_ the best method to cure or prevent this desire ? . 

father. Without a doubt, my Son, the divers baptisms 
under the law, imported purification from sin, and especially 
when attended with confession of sins 3 as was the case with 
those performed by John, and Christ’s disciples. The 
_ apostle:says, Heb, ix..40, referring to these with other or- 
dinances, that they were “ imposed (that is, ordained of 
God) on them, until the time of reformation.” When 
Christ nailed them ‘to his cross; the time of reformation 


* 
e x 


22 


came, and they ceased.* As they implied purification 
. from sin by the Spirit of God, they represented holiness of 
heart ; butnever were designed as seals of the covenant any 


more than offering sacrifice or eating the passover, or any _ 
other sacred duty. Circumcision went furthers it meant not _ 


only cutting off the sin of the flesh, but was the appropri- 
ate seal of the righteousness of faith, or covenant of grace. 
And now, eating the Lord’s supper, prayer and praise, 
imply holiness of heart in the performers: but ‘christian 
baptism goes further ; it not only implies regeneration, but 
being performed in the name of the Trinity, it is the ap- 
propriate seal of faith in Christ under the gospel. 

Your next question is much more difficult ; “ what makes 
tender-hearted christians ever’ desire to be plunged?” I 
can express my mind without being uncharitable. It is 


error in their understandings. Being broken down with a- 


sense of their sins, and tasting the goodness of God and 
the preciousness of Christ; they now are told “they must 


take up their cross, and go down as it were, the banks of © 


Jordan, into the water, as their Saviour did, and must be 
buried with him in baptism, or they cannot be accepted of 
him in this duty.” “Oh,” say they, “if this is the way to 


express duty to him, who died for poor sinners like usywe © 
long to do it immediately.” Their feelings are tenderly — 


excited, while their understandings are led; merely by 
what is told them; connected with a few out-of-the-way, 
misapplied texts, to help out the duty. This explains the 
thing to my mind. A really tender-hearted christian will 


* It is astonishing, how many will cling ‘to these baptisms after the _ 


apostle has absolutely nullified them / Having his mind turned directly to 
them, ‘he limited their duration to the moment when the reformation from 
the ritual law commenced ; and then declared them extinct. _ But alas, this 
hurts them -not at all, for many who have a prejudice i in their favour ; 


with them they are precious baptisms still !? From such ghost-men ; 


whom ayia scripture will not control, may we be delivered. 


23 


Wesire to do any thing, which he thinks his Saviour has 
€ommanded, as an expression of obedience to him. The. 
idea of following Christ into the water strikes them power- 
fully. And they are further told, that he left us an exam- 
ple that we should follow his steps; and if we are not 
willing to take up his cross, we cannot be his disciples ; 
with much more of the like instruction. 

Now, your last question, what is the best method to cure 
or prevent this desire to be plunged, is attended likewise 
with some difficulty. But to be quite plain, I will answer 
first'to the eure of the desire, and then its prevention. 
Nothing is necessary to cure this desire wherever it ex- 
ists, but to enlighten their understandings, and let them see 
from Christ’s own words, that he requires no such thing. 
And if their minds are free from prejudice they will be 
convinced, and the desire cured. Let them see, that if all 
their teachers were to be crucified to-day, or bring one 
text of scripture which declared any individual plunged all 
under water in baptism, upon whom the name of the Tri- 
nity was called, they must fail and be crucified ; for there 
is no such text existing in the bible. Should ‘they fly to 
the legal baptisms under the ceremonial law, they must see — 
that these could not be designed to seal the covenant of 
grace, while circumcision continued the divinely appointed 
seal. 

They must see that Christ was a minister of the circum- 
cision, a legal priests and of course his baptism, to-make 
him a priest, could not be plunging, (if he followed the law 
which made him a priest) nor could his example, in this in- 
stance be for christians. to follow, any more than his literal 
crucifixion. When Aaron and his sons were consecrated, 
to the priest’s office, Exod. xxix. 4—xl. 12,13. and Lev. 
Ville 6..it was done at the door of the congregation, in 
the presence of the whole assembly. Here they were wash- - 
ed ; (those parts of their bodies, which were commonly un- 


24 

covered) and not a circumstance about it which looked like 
plunging; and this was declared to be an everlasting priest» — 
hood throughout their generations ; that is, the order of con 
stituting priests. And when Christ was baptized ‘by John, 
and acted upon this very statute, there is not’a syllable of 
proof that he was plunged; but thay he ‘was Meg Seen 
and his sons were... “5° 78200" 9) he ee eee 

To perform this rite, John and Jesus stepped ore into 
the river Jordan. But their stepping in was not the rite 
intended. After this, he baptized him ; that is, washed ‘him 
as the law directed; and then their coming up straightway 
out of the water, hinted nothing of the manner of his 
baptism ; only that they stepped out of the water as they 
stepped in. “Ra Hr - 

A tender-hearted christian only needs to see’ this, and he 
would be shocked with the idea of following Christ in this 
part of his official duty; he would be shocked likewise with 
the thought, that simple duty to Christ, in his nae ro 
ve should be called a@ cross. 

* Duty to him is considered throughdut he peopel as a 
pleasure. Can the seal of the covenant of grace be a cross? 
astonishing! Does Christ’s ordinance need td be guarded 

‘with alarming exhortations, lest in certain instances it 
should excite wicked thoughts and wicked smiles? Does it 
need to be hidden from’the eyes of the world, in order to 
be decent! Must it be denied to the sick, or endanger their 
lives? God forbid: This is not Christ’s ordinance. He 

‘will not allow his sacraments to be a ctoss. But to cut off 
right-hand sins was a cross, in Christ’s view, for his fol- 
lowers to take up} to bear reproach for his sake, in doing 
well, was to take up his cross. Christ suffered reproach for 
righteousness sake: herein “leaving us an example that wé 
should follow his steps,” 1 Pet. ii. 2ist, 22d, and 23d verses. 
Now, to bring forward Christ’s baptism, by which he was 
made a priest of the circumcision, and then urge his exam- 


. 


36 
ple in’ this Instance, for christians to follow 3 and adduce the 
above text from Peter to'enforce the duty; are horrid mis- 
takes ! A feeling mind, after it has really seen the imposi=" 


tion; turns away from it with detestation. I am sensible, af- 


ter any one has been under the flood, there are so many 
false guises left over his mind, it is next to impossible to dart 
into it any light or conviction of his error. But it is duty to 
use every kind, gospel method, to enlighten his understand- 
ing’; and if nothing: prevails, leave him where the apostle does; 
“if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Cor. xiv. 38. 
As an effectual prevention of this desiré of being plunged, 
rising i in the heart of any person, I would suggest two expe- 
dients : Let christian ‘parents, but especially pious mothers in 


Israel, call their children round them, on the Lord’s day 
evenings, after divine service; and with teaching them 


their catechisms and other duties, let one or two of them 
read portions of this dialogue, and sing hymns composed on 
this subject." By frequently calling up the meaning of bap- 
tism, and looking at the texts of scripture’ which explain 
and. enforce it, they will soon begin to understand © it. 
Let the mother, as the children read, stop them often, and. 
make them read the texts, at full length, which occur in 
the dialogue $ and let her question them abundantly, to see 


_ whether they understand their connection and force. Let her 
explain to them that eterna/, unchangeable covenant, whick 


extends from the beginning of time to the consummation ; 


taking in all believers only: Wet her point them to three 


periods of this covenant. 

1. From Adam to: Abraham.—In this period no out- 
ward sign was required, only holy worship and life. 

2. From Abraham to Christ’s crucifixion:—In this period 
circumcision was enjoined as the outward seal of this cove- 


ant. 


3. From Christ’s crucifixion to the end of the world.— 
In this period, baptism was instituted in place of circum- 


ra 


26 


cision, as the outward, seal of this covenants... By shewing 
them ‘chapter- and, verse, let them see, ‘that as, believers 
were required -to place the seal of their faith. ‘upon their 


children, under the first seal of the covenant, -so they were 


underthe second, !in, all ages; and. as the application of wa- 
ter, by washing, sprinkling or pouring, by a proper officer 
in. the name of the. Trinity, is. the baptism of the New ‘Tes- 
tament, I presime,- nota single child thus instructed, when 
he comes to be‘regenerated, will ever desire to, be plunged ; 
for not one.example.can be found in’scripture, under the gos- 
pel, to lead his mind: to it. His. tender conscience and wil- 
ling mind to. do his duty and honour Christ, will lead him 


to enquire whether he. were ever dedicated to God, and 


sealed. with ‘his’ parent’s faith, or any other person’s who ex- 
‘ ercised the duty of a believing parent towards. him? If he 
finds he were baptized in infancy, he will receive: that seal as 
the sign of his own faith by assent; if not, he will be bap- 
tized for himself, and devote all he has to the Lord.—Sing- 
ing of hymns. in.the family on this subject, composed by Dr. 
Watts and others, may be greatly useful to impress both pa- 
rents and children, and animate them in the. bad ai of 
their several duties. 

Iam sensible, my Son, that many tiv that hess were 
“brought out at first in favour of plunging: it was the 
first light they had on the,subject, and in answer to prayer 


too, and. therefore, it must be the rightest way.” Indeed I 


have no inclination to. dispute the correctness of. their 
statement, any more than to dispute the fact, that some 
children are born blind. But suppose a large number of 
children, were born blind, this would not prove. it to be the 
rightest or happiest condition, in which to be born. Gr sup- 
‘pose. a child, the first time he opened his eyes, should look 
through green spectacles, and sce every thing about him dres- 
sed in green ; could he from-hence. infer that’ green was the 
best and noblest colour, and that all other children ought to 


iin 2 


QT 


seé things dressed in green? If not, then it is no argument 
that plunging is the rightest way, because any one is 
brought out at first to admire plunging. Suchia desire-is 
not an answer to prayer, but the effect of green spectacles. 
Their minds were tinged with this sentiment at the time ; ot 
it may be the mist was ¢ast over them at unawares after- 
ward. They might as well have been brought out in the light 
of any other notion, not inconsistent with grace, The truth, 
my Son, is, whatever is written in the word of God on this 
subject is to be: followed strictly, comparing Scripture with 
scripture : but the multiplicity of i impressions which people 
get aside from the scriptures, and about the scriptures through 
false mediums of ‘sight, only distort the gospel plan, in- 
crease spiritual pride, and add to the quantity of wood, 
hay, and stubble, which will be consumed at the last day. 
Let the word of God be set before the minds of children, in 
its own clear and heavenly light, and the desire of being 
plunged never will exist’ within them. 

I should be willing, my Son, to have you withdraw, and 
close the interview, were it not that an important thought now 
strikes me, and perhaps I shall never have another oppors 
tunity to communicate it. In all this conversation I’ perceive 
you consider yourself in an unregenerate ‘state ; ‘you ‘have 
confessed it. | But if this be your condition,-as I fear it is, it 
is a most dangerous one. Your privileges have been such, 
as to give you very clear ideas of your duty. Standing 
thus with the light of the gospel beaming on your con- 


science from every quarter, and glowing all around you ; 


is it not a dreadful thing to resist all this light, and quench 
the Spirit of God, which accompanies it, and knocks at the 
‘door of your Absa for entrance? Do you not see that all 


_~ your advantages increase your obligation to repent, and 
yield your soul and body to the Lord? And to resist all 
this obligation increases your guilt in proportion, and con- 
sequently your danger. I presume you do not pretend to 


28 


form any excuse in your own mind for your. impenitency, 
How then can you rest easy? My prayers have ascended 
to the mercy-seat for you, ever since you: was.lent to me; 
You have been obedient and dutiful in an outward sense, and 
listened diligently to instruction: but what of all this?) If 
you remain impenitent and an enemy to God, your soul 
must be lost, and miserable in proportion to the benefits you 
have abused and despised. My bowels yearn oyer you, my 
child; I feel an agony for your salvation! I beseech you 
to stop, and think of your situation. Awake, awake from 
your carnal security. Has not Christ tasted death for you; 
and will you not secure the salvation of your soul by yield. 
ing yourself to him? How can you endure the thought, that 
Christ should spill his blood for you in vain? No, it will 
not be in vain, if you repent not, his blood. and. gr ace 
abused, will lay a foundation for the greater display of Ais 
_ justice in your eternal ruin! O think of this; think of ¥ war 

increasing danger while you delay ; do not presume. onthe 
patience of your Saviour to continue in sin, but repent and 
live.’ Feel the temper of the Publican, pray in the spirit of 
his prayer, and then you will be heard, you will bless God 
for all his mercies, and be happy for ever. a Ng cl 

Child. Sir, I thank you—your kindness and compassion 

overcome me—my heart is full—pray for me still. 
Adieu. 


~ 


A HYMN. 


INFANT DEDICATION. 


Ps. CXxXvii. 3. 


Proy. xx. 7. 


Gen. xxx. 13. 
1 Chron. xxii. 5. 


Ps. i..:5, 
1 Pet. y. 8, 


Ps. cx. 3. 
Heb. xii. 24, 
YT Petar 2. 


Luke ii. 22. 
Rom. iv. 11, 


Gen, xvii. 7, 10. 


(From the Missionary Magazine. _ 


Lirtis babe, I now receive thee 
From thy Maker’s bounteous hand, 
With his precious grace I leave thee, 
May’st thou in his favour stand. — 


Weak and helpless, young and tender, 
Thow’st committed to my care; 

While my thanks to God T render, 
Thou a parent’s love shalt share. 


Born in sin, in sin conceived, 
Satan would destroy thy soul; 
But by this my fear’s relieved, 
Grace can Satan’s wiles control. 


God’s free Spirit in a twinkling, 
Can display resistless power ; ' 
Can apply the blood of sprinkling, 
And thy ruin’d state restore. 


Thee a gracious God has lent me, > 
For thy precious soul I feel ; 

Back to God I now present thee, 
To receive an holy seal. 


This shall seal the cov’nant to me, 
In which God has thus agreed ; 
Twill be a God, both to thee, 
And 9 Ged-unto thy seed. 


30 


Gen, xxvi. 4, § Blessed cov’nant, what extension! 


‘ Rom. v. 20. Grace abounding over sin; eg 
Mark x. 14. Othe glorious condescension, 
Thus to take our infants sin! 
Acts Xvi. 15, 33. Stillno cause we find to sever 
ii. 39. Parents from their children dear = 
Ps, xxxvii. 26. Both united still together, 
In the gracious promise share. 


Gen. xvii. 11. Of God’s coy’nant as the token, 
tT Abra’m’s sons were circumcis’d ; . 
14. If the cov’nant be not broken, 
Infants now may be baptiz’d. 


Rom. xi. 16, 25. *Twas the olive once did nourish ~ 
, Jews rejected now for sin; 
On the same the gentiles flourish, 
Now through faith ingrafted in. 


Luke xviii. 15, 16. If believers for their offspring 
Then had heavenly blessings seal’d, 
Thus believers are in nothing 
From such blessings now withheld, » 


Rom. xi. 17. Jews the olive’s sap and sweetness 
Did enjoy for Jesus’ sake : 
Of its precious root and fatness 
Holy gentiles now partake. ' 


t Cor. vii. 14. Children still are holy named 
From the parent who believes ; 
Surely then we must be blamed 
If we slight, when Christ receives: 


Gen. xvii. 14. Hearing what the word has told me, 
Acts ii. 29. Precious babe a call I find, _ 
Rom, ii. 17. In the arms of faith to hold thee, 

To receive the seal designed, 


Eph. vi. 4. O for grace to make me careful 
Ps. cxix. 32. All my duty to discharge; _ . 
Humble I shall be-and pray’rful, 
4f the Lord my heartenlarge. | 


a 


ees 31 


- Deut. vi. 7. Daily I would be instilling 
v.29. Heavenly truths into thy mind ; 
| Eccl. xi. 6. If a gracious God be willing, 


These thy heart at length shall find: 


Prov. xix. 18. Sharp correction if required,’ 
xxii. 15. For thy failings thou must feel, 
xxiii. 13, 14, To promote the end desired, 
xxix. 47, And preserve thy soul from hell. 


Eph, i. 8, 9. Still with God’s free grace I leave thee 
When my duty all is done : 
His free grace alone must save thee, 
For the sake of Christ his Sons 


FINIS: 


en 
SPUR P OH Er Ore EhrosescesbeuecsDtatusaeuered 


Paul & Thomas, Printers. 


Perr rer rr ererre aRacrereseaseee ayeree 


* 
t 
t 
‘ 
4 


etn 


st 


me 


x | aah ee ae ys 


> yer 


wert le. Ri 


eae HEBREW or JEWISH, any CHRISTIAN CHURCH THe SAME; 
, ILLUSTRATED 4np APPLIED, 


- 


IN PROOF OF THE DUTY 


INFANT-BAPTISM; 


AND THE MOST WEIGHTY AND PLAUSIBLE - 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED : 

¢ oe 

> “THREE SERMONS. 

te RES RUE SESS AR ak SG EE aa aa 


zy GILES H. COWLES, a. w. 


PASTOR OF THE FIRST CHURCH IN BRISTOL, (CON.) 


3 <8 Fae AS = <3 


¢ Hearers. 


Published at the Request of th 


TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
AN 
APPENDIX 


MODE or BAPTISM. . 


a RE PSL POTENS x. 
ee: 


BY JONATHAN MILLER, a. m. 


PASTOR OF THE CHURCH IN WEST-ERITAIN. 


IP 


—NEWAR K- : 
PRINTED BY JOHN WALLIS, OPPOSITE THE COURT-HOUSE, 
1802. 


No. 


THE fubftance of thefe difcourfes was delivered in twe | 


Sermons.—But as they have been confiderably enlarged, they © 
are now divided into three. 


_T. Contams the ifluftration, and arguments — 


in proof of the doétrine, that the Jewifh 
and Chriftian Churches are the fame.. 


II. Anfwers the. objeétion againft this doc- 


trine. 


if, Applies the fubje@ in Proof of the duty 


; 
; 


4 


of Infant-Baptifm and anfwers objections | 


againfi this practice, 


SERMON I. 


fe men sre reo epoca a 


ROMANS Xi. 17, 18, Tg, and zo, 


| And if fome of the branches be broken off, and thou, being & witia 


olive tree wert graffed in among them, and with them par- 
takeft of the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree ; boaf? not again 
the branches : But if thou boaft, thou bearef? not the root, but 
the ract thee. Thow wilt fay then, The branches were breken 
ef, that Imay be graffed in. Well, becaufe of unbelief they 
were broken off, and thou flandef? by faith. 


“HE olive isa very beautiful and ufeful tree, yielding 
oil, which, by the inhabitants of the eaftern coun- 


_taies, was much uled. in foed, and in fupplying their lamps. 
Olive yards therefore were much cultivated in the land of 


€anaan. Olive leaves or boughs alfo were confidered: as em- 
blems of peace among the ancients. God therefore repre- 
fents his church or people asan olive-tree. Thus, fpeaking 
ef the Hebrew church, Jer. xi. 16, he fays, For the Lord 
called thy name, a green. olive-tree, fair and of. goodly 
fruit.” Again, Hofea xiv. 6, he fays of Ifrael, “ His bran- 
ches {hall fpread and his beauty fhall be as the olive-tree.” 


God’s church or people may with great propriety be likened: 


to a fair, fruitful olive-tree ; becaufe when they a& in charac- 
ter, and bring forth the fruits of religion, they are beautiful 


in the view of all holy beings, and feek the “ things that © 


make for’ peace,” as the oliveis an emblem of peace—and 
becaufe they are. ufeful by their pious, exemplary lives; and 
fhine as lights in the world ; as the olive by its oil fupplies 
maokind with light.. 

When therefore the apoftle here fpeaks of the olitve-tree, 


from which the Jews were broken off by unbelief, and into: 


which the believing Gentiles were graffed by faith ; he evi- 
dently muft have reference to the Jewith church, which was 
thus called an olive-tree, “fair and of goodly fruit.” The 
Jewith church. then. is here reprefented by an olive-tree, 
fpringing from Abraham or Chrift as the root. The bran 


te 
a 


" 


“ és, of every country and denomination, ae as to ¢ 


an 


(4) 


_-— 


ches are the members, and thofe whi 


note the unbelieving Jews ; who were cut off f 
vifible ftanding in thie church becaufe of tl ir unbelief, or 
reje@ion of Chrit and his gofpel. Th | olive-tree ree 
prefents the Gentiles ; who when they were grdffed 


into this good olive-tree among the branches which remain- 
ed, and with them partook of the root and fatnefs of the 
olive-tree, or of the fpecial bleflings, privileges, and promi- 
fes, pertaining to the Jewifh church. Since therefore the 
believing Gentiles are graffed into ‘the fame, olive-tree or 
church, from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off; 
itis manifet, that the Jewith and Chrifttan church wre ef 
fentially the fame; or in other words, that the Chriftian 
church is but the continuance and extenfion of the jewifh. 
To, illudrate, prove, and apply this foosiinead will eer’ 
object of the enfuing difcourfes. « ashe 


a Is 


‘In doing this it is propoled 5 ya \ rh “ys 

I. To illutrate and prove the pots that the Jewihh 
and Chriftian church. are effentially the filme. ©. |) ty ie « 

II. To anfwer objesions againtt the do@rines)... 1), 

Ill. To make application of the Sic in oat te 
duty of Infant Baptifm. 

I. Itis propofed to illuftrate and ot the eee, th uy 


the Jewith and Chriltian church are eflentially 
The term church is fometimes ufed to figni ya ai, wh 
ot ever fhall be renewed and faved ; including‘all th 
its of jult men made parfeét” in heaven, and ant hoe 
tianson earth. This is Chrift’s {piritual houle, built up 
living ftones, and is whatis termed the univerfal, i =, ‘ 
church. All of every age, country, and der 
who have been renewed by ‘the Holy Spirit, 
fuch, are members of phis i invilible oheeen! + dye iE 62 igs 

The word church is alfo ufed to denote all im ey at 
ofthe world who profefs and appear to be the Peo of te: 
This is what is called the univerfal vifible . church 3 
includes all who are profefledly or apparently , in covenant 
with God.’ In this fenfe, the Iftaelites, under- 
difpenfation, were his vilible church, Accordingly | itis, 
Aas vii. 38, that Mofes “was in the churehi in t ann.” 
nefs.” And profefiing Chrillians conftitute God's _ ae 

church under the prefent difpenfation. All pa articular ¢ ure 


tials, are eftablifhed, accordi:z ng to the conflitution and bs =k 
or G od’s word, are but parts of Chrills great vilible ‘eburch 


SD 

‘er family bere on earth; however they may differ in rites, 
_ modes, or things not fundamental. 

_ + When therefore it is faid that the Chriftian and Jewith 
_ church are effentially the fame; the meaning is, that the 
| Jews were required to profets, and actually did profefs, to 
_ bethe real people of God’; or in other words they profeffed 
 effentially the fame religion—the fame love and obedience; 
‘which the members of Chrift’s church new do. ‘Thofe of 
them who were really what they profefled to be, were as much 
entitled to falvation, as fincere profeffors now are. The 
Jews continued to be the vifible church or profeffing people 
of God, and fome of them were,fo in reality, until the com~ 
ing and death of the Saviour. Then thofe, who rejedted 
his gofpel, were brokea off from their vifible ftanding in that 
church becaufe of their unbelief. But thofé Jews, who, 
like the apoftles and others, profefled cordiaily to receive the 
Meffiah, ftill continued to be God’s-vifible church. And 
the believing Gentiles were graffed in among them into the 
old olive-tree or ‘Jewifh church ; and fo both Jews and Gen- 
tiles were united in one body, called the Chriftian church. 
. Allthe difference therefore between God’s church, under the 
aricient and Chriftian ‘difpenfation, confifts in external rites, 
‘forms, and modes of inftruétion, arifing wholly from the 
different circumftances, in which they were placed. God 
faw fit, before the coming of Chrift, to reveal bur obfcurely 
thofe divine truths, which related to the atonement and me- 
diation of the Saviour, and to other important do@rines 
of religion ; and to inftru& his church in thefe truths by types 
and emblems, which fhadowed forth “ good things to come.” 
But fince the coming and death of Chrift, thefe truth are 
now more clearly revealed ; and therefore thofe rites 
and inflitutions, which typified thefe, are abolifhed ; and 
other ordinances, more ealy and fimple, are introduced in- 
their ftead. ‘To fuppofe then that God’s church under the 
ancient difpenfation was effentially different from what it 
is under the Chriftian, becaufe it had lefs tight, and was more 
_ obfcurely infruétedin divine truth, is as unreafonable, as it 
_ would be to fuppofe, that the man is not the fame perfon 
he was when a child; becaufe he then had lefs knowledge, 
‘and was governed and inftruéted in a very different manner, 
_ from’what he now is. The Jewifh church, according to 
_ the apoftle’s reprefentation, Gal. iv. was like a child under 
tutors and governors, and the Chriftian like a fon and heir at 
adult age. This fhuws, that the Chriftian church is eflential- 


(6) 


oe 


ly the fame as the Jewifh, being the continuation of the fame 
church under a different difpenfation, or under different modes 


ard circumftances ; juft as the fon, when at ad It age, is the 
feme perfon, he was whea 2 minor, but only isina different 
fituation. 


Further, the Hebrew church was the fame as the Chriftian, 


in this fenfe, that it was the church of Chrift. It was Chrift, 
cr the fecond perfon of the Trinity, who from time to time 
appeared to Abraham as the Lord his God, and made that 
eonvenant with him, which was the foundation of the f ebrew 


ehnrch, Chrift was alfo the Lord God of Abraham, Haac — 


and Jacob, who appeared to Mofes inthe bufh, brought the 
Ifraelites out of Egypt, made the covenant with them at 
Mount Sinai, and manifefted himfelf in the tabernacle. For 
David, in Plalm Ixviii. 18, fpeaking of the God who went 


before his people in the wildernefs, fays “Thou haft afcended: 


en high, thou haft led captivity captive,” &c, And the apof- 
tle Eph. iv. 8, exprefsly applies this to Chrift ; which plainly 
thows thathe was the Lord God of Abraham & of the eae 
church—that he was the angel of “the church in the wilder- 
nefs.” Aéts vii. 38. The Hebrew church therefore was the 
church of Chrift, as much as the Chriftian church now iss 


and in this refpeét they are the fame, as they ftandin thefame — 


relation to the Mediater, he being the bead of beth. Confe- 
guently {peaking or thinking lightly of the Hebrew church is 
evidently defpifing the church of Chrift, i, ; 

Having made iome obfervationsto illuftrate the dodtrine, 
that the Hebrew and Chriftian churches are the fame ; it is 


propofed to produce fome more direét arguments in proofof — 


this fentiment. 


1. It may be conclufively argued from the confideration, 


that they are both founded on the covenant of grace. As 

many appear to have wrong or cenfufed ideas of this covenant, 
ittmay be necefiary briefly to ftate and explain it. The pro- 
per meaning of the term covenantis an agreement between. 
parties on certain conditions ; or it is fome conditional _propo- 
fai made by one party to another. And an aflent to this propo- 
fal by the other party is ratifying the covenant. Grace is the 
exercife of mercy or goodnefs towards the unworthy or ill- 
delerving. “ . 

By the covenant of grace then is meant God’s offering’ his 
faver or eternal life to unwerthy finners, through Chrift, 
upon condition of repentance and faith. The condition on 
tean’s part is a faith, which will exprefs itfelf in cordial love 


(7) 


tnd obedience. And the promife on God’s part to thofe, 
who comply with this condition, is his favor and life eternal. 
‘Whenever therefore a perfon exercifes love and faith towards 
God, he cordially affents to the covenent of grace, or enters into 
it ; andall who profefs real religion do profefledly affent to this 
sovenant, and are vibly init. It is important, that we dif 
tinguifh between this covenant of grace and the covenant 
of redemption, which many confufedly blend  toge- 
ther. ‘ The covenant of redemption fubfifts between the 
three perfons in the facred Trinity, containing their propofals 
and engagements, refpecting the redemption and falvation of 
fallen man.” God the Father propofes and promifes, to 
‘God the Son, th.t, if he will undertake the work of redemp- 
tion, he fhall fee of the travail of his foul and be fatisfied. 
‘The Son undertakes, and the Holy Ghoft acquiefces, and en- 
gages to aflit in carrying this plan into execution by renewing 
the hearts of thofe, who are given to Chrift. The covenant of 
redemption then fubfifts between the three perfons in the Tria- 
ity, and was eternal. But the covenant of grace as has been 
fhown is between God and fallen man; and none are brought 
into this covenant, until they do in fome way affent to its con- 
‘ditions, which are repentance, faith, and love. 

This covenant of grace was revealed in fome degree to Adam, 
Enoch, Noah, and the other pieus patriarchs, who lived be- 
fore Abraham ; and it was by a cordial compliance with its 
zerms, that they obtained falvation. It was more fully revea- 
led to Abraham in that covenant, which God made with him, 
and of which circumcifion was the feal or token. For a lit- 
tle attention to the fubje@ will plainly evince, that the 
Abrahamic covenant, which was the foundation of the He- 
brew church, was in fubltance the covenant of grace. When 
God defigned, in a more public manner than before, to con- 
ftitute a vifible church, he called Abraham out from his na- 
tive country and the idolatrous world. And after Abraham 
by complying with the divine directions, had manifefted his 
faith and obedience, God propofed publicly to enter into a 
eoyenant with him, promifed him peculiar favors on certain 
eonditions, and appointed a vifible token or {eal of ratifi cation. 
Abraham affented to the conditions, applied the token accor- 
dingsto the direction, and thus vifibly entered into covenant 
with God. Now ifit can be fhown, that this covenant requi- 
red faith or real religion, as its condition, and promifed God’s 
favor or eternal lifete a compliance with this condition; it 


(8) 
will be undeniably evident, that it was. 
nant of grace. °° 

That faith or real ’religion was the co 
‘hamic covenant, is manifelt from variou TZ 
fs manifcft from ‘the voy face of the “covenant 
Gen: xvii.—God fays to Abraham, verfe 1 an 
Almighty God ; walk before me and be” 
upright and fhieberiey’ as the word often 
make my covenant between me and thee.” 
from this account, that the condition ea 
yed on Abraham’s part, was to « walk b 
perfea” cr upright; and this certainly i 
Are there any Chriftians, who now do more t 
was required of Abraham as the condition re 
not, it is evident, that real religion was | othe 
Abrahamic covenant, 

Further itis manifelt from what the me 
cifion, that this covenant was ‘the coven 2 
certain, that circumcifion was the token Or | 
God made with Abraham: ‘Ye fhall ai 
your forefkin, and it thall be a token of pn 3 
me and you.” Gen. xvii. 11. But the avenue ecla 
iv. 11, that Abraham * received the. fign of circ 
feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith y whic 1h 
uucircumcifed ” | Here it may be aba ‘ 
“ righteoufiels of faith” in feripture is mea 
faith in Chrift. ye renee 

. Circumcifion, being called «a feal of the $i ighteor 
the faith,” &c: fhows, that it was a gis fo © 
patt, that he would” pardon and Hay rah 
other true believers on account of th a ° 
very fame thing, promifed in the covena 
that God will jultify all, who cordially believe in 1 th 
Since therefore circumcifion, the token of the Grae mic 
covenant, was “ a feal of the righteoufnefs of the Ae ra ; 
token, that the faith of believers fhould be counted unto them _ 
for rishteoufnefs or jullification ; it is certain + 

the covenant of des > F oe a hl 

Further, fince the <ireumcifion, which’ Abraham | er 
is faid to be “ a {eal of the richteoufnefs of the 
he had? &ci it frows, that it was a token of faith iad 
us well as’@tcken on’ God’s part, that’ thofe™ oie hak this» 
faith thould be juflified. But if this ae of. which ¢ ir- 
cumeiicn was the token or feal, did’ wot” require: is Swe 


CF 


a (9) 


ee creumeilig himfelf and houfehold in compliance 
with its requirement be any feal or manifeftation of his faith? 
, For his receiving or applying the token of the covenant could. 
‘7 ot be a feal or manifeftation of any thing more than the 
: £3 venant required. If therefore, faith was not the condition 
bat this covenant ; then Abraham’s receiving the fign of it could 
_ be no feal or token of his faith. But fince the apoftle calls 
his circumcifion, “ a feal of the faith which he had,’ &c. it is 
certain, that faith was the condition of the Abrahamic cove- 
nant. Accordingly it is faid verfe 13, “ For the promife 
{which was made to Abraham in this covenant] that he fhould 
be the heir of the world, [or the father of many nations or of 
all the believing world] was not to Abraham, or to his feed 
through the law, but through the righteoufnefs of faith. And 
the faith here fpoken of by the apoitle, and of which circum- 
cifion was a feal, wasthat faith, which was accounted unto 
Abraham for righteoufnefs, and made him the father of 
‘all them that believe.” 1s it not therefore abundantly 
manifelt, that faving or juftifying faith was the condition of 

the Abrahamic covenant ? 

Thisis further evident from the confideration, that upbhe- 
lief debarred perfons from the bleffings, promifed in this 
covenant. One of thefe promifed bleflings, was the land of 
Canaan. But theapoftle {peaking of the Ifraclites, “whofe 
carcafes fell in the wildernefs” fays, They could not enter 
into the land of promife « becaufe of unbelief.” 

If therefore, they could not obtain the bleffings, promifed 
tn this covenant becaufe of unbelief, it is manifeft, that faith 

' was the condition of the covenant; otherwife, how could 
unbelief cut off from its bleflings? ‘his truth is alfo evident 
from the words of the apoftle Rom. xi. 20. The Abra- 
hamic covenant all allow was the foundation of the Jewith 

* church. But the apoftle there declares that the Jews were 
broken off from this church or olive-tree “ becaufe of unbe- 
Nef ;” which proves incontrovertibly, that faith was the 
‘condition of the covenant, on which that church was founded. 
Since therefore, the condition of the Abrahamic covenant 

' was faith or real religion, it mult be efientially the covenant 
of grace. 

-Thisis {ill further evident from what is promifed in this 
covenant. For among other favors God promifes Abraham, 
“«to be a God unto him and to his feed afier him.” Gen. 
xvii. 7. Inthis covenant then God promifes to give him- 
felf; and is there any thing greater promiled to believers in 

B 


] 
‘ox 
. 


bale 


_ dent beyond all rational contradiétion, that i 


‘ham in the covenant which Codmtha 


_which circumcifion was the fzal, that 


. For the apoltle exprefsly declares, , that he re 


tx) 2 ae: 


the covenant of grace? “It is remar 
* phivafeology is’ preierved in the new ' 
“bleGings, of the covenant of grace ar 
the principal promite in what is called | 
Heb, viii. 10. is, “I will be unto them a 
be tome a people? “ And all the b 
which will finally be conferred on believers 
*thus exprefed. He that overcometh 

“things ; and Jawill be his'God.” Ye 
real Chriftians any thing greater or 
Himfelf, or that -he willbe their God. 
the Abrahami¢ covenant, promifed to give 
is the greateft of all {picitual blefiing:, and 5 ae 
prorailed to believers in the new Teltamen 


«ition of this covenant was faith or real mn ee 


fation of the covenant iof grace. 


Accordingly the apoltle ipeaking ie 
Abraham, expreisly declares, Roni. ; 
In cen i. 14. ; 


‘of faith, that itamight be by grace.” L4.' 
ys 


fpeaks of the bleflings of Abrahank comi 
through’ Jefus Chrift. But if the bleflings 


fume, which now come on the Gentiles th 
then this covenant mult be the covenant o 
Again, Gal. iii. 29. it is laid, “ If ye E 
ye Abraham's feed, and heirs according 
Here it may be oblerved, that it wasyl 


tuted the father of many nations, or of he 


all them that believe.”? It is therefore 
believers become the (eed of Abraham, 
to, the promife. But if this covevatir - was ‘not i 
of grace, and did not promie fpiritual blefling: 
it coniiains believers Abraham’sfeed, and “heirs @ 
fings whichit promifed, For all Gentile belie 
do tot inherit the Jand of Canaan and other © 
fings here promifed to Abraham. They cannot 
fente Be the heirsof the promife of this’ cove 
proiailed {piridual bleilings. 
Since therefore, Chitiiians boda te Abate 
covenaiit, ‘and are heirs of is i according | to 


of the righteouline!s, af fared h, that ke: mig 


fe a (tr } 


that God would bea God unto him, and to his feed 5: 
Wis manifelt that this was effentially the fame covenant of 
" grace, in which all Chriftians are now interelted. All who 
‘were profeffedly in this covenant, were profelledly in the co- 
W)venant of grace. Is it not flrange, that any, who attentively 
: “ confider the fubject, can, in direct oppoiition to all thefe plain 
proofs fromthe holy fcriptures, deny, as many do, that the 
_ Abrahamic covenant wasthe covenant of grace, and promi- 
fed Spiritual bleffings ? As therefore, the Abrahamic covenant, 
on which the Hebrew church was founded, was the covenant 
of grace, and as all allow, that the covenant of grace is the 
foundation of the Chriftian church; it is manifelt, that 
they are effentially the fame. 
_ 2. Another argument in proof of this doétrine is, that the 
fame qualifications were required for memberfhip in the He- 
brew, as are now required in the Chriftian church. That 
right affe@ions ofheart towards God, or faith and a ‘holy 
obedience, are the qualifications, which God now requires 
w tnemberfhip in the Chriftian church, is generally allowed. 
\nd that thele were required in the members of the Hebrew 
church, is certain from the feriptures. ‘Thus when the 
church was firit fet up or organifedin the perfon and family 
of Abraham; the qualification required of him was, to 
© walk before God, and be perfect’? or upright, which, as 
before fhewn, implies real religion. And his circumciling 
_ himfelf and family, was a vifible token or profelfion of his 
\ faith and obedience. Now if God required faith or real re- 
ligion, as the conde this covenant, which he made with 
Abraham, as the fat ér of the Hebrew church, and on which 
_ this church was founded; then it is certain, that'this fame 
P condition or qualification was required of all, who entered 
into this cevenant, and became members of this church. 
~ For God faid to Abraham, “Thou fhalt keep my covenant 
therefore, thou, and thy feed after thee in their generations,’” 
which fhews, thatthe covenant was the fame, in its condi- 
tions or requirements, both to Abraham, and to all his poi- 
terity, who entered into it in their fucceeding generations. 
Further, circumcifion was the known, ftanding token of 
the Abrahamic covenant, which has been fhewn to be the co- 
venant of grace. The token of a covenant is jomething, 
lich denotes an aflent to it, and is a ratification of it.’ 
When therefore any perfon applied this known, f'anding to- 
len of God’s covenant to himielf or children, he did by the 


~ 


~ tfansadtien profefs or engage to comply with its conditions 5 


(4) b & 
as Much as a perfon now does, when he b 
wordsof acovenant. As therefore, all th 
Hebrew church were acquired to apply 
venant to their children; it is manifeft, t i 
quired to exercife that faving or juftifyi ae fait 
circumcifion was the token. For iat God « tree 
quire them to apply this tcken in a hypocritical | Manner. 
Thefe confiderations plainly evince that trae faith was a 
quired by God as the condition of the Abrahamic coy 
and of an approved ftanding i in the anc _cborch fas 
dingly the apoftle declares, that the , 
from that church by unbelief, and’ that beliew! yon 
were graffed in, and flood by faites which fhews_ cyon ‘all 
reafonable difpute that faith was required: as a term of an 
approved flanding in the Jewifh, as well as in th Chriftian 
church ; and that therefore the qualifications of memberfhip P | 
were the fame in both churches. 

Again, God made a covenant with the Hebrew cas or . 
people at Mount-Sinai, in which he promifed peculiar bleffings 
on certain conditions. To this they profefledly gave th 
affent, and thus entered into covenant with G And thi 
covenant was the conftitution of the Jewith chick until 1 
death of Chrift. Iftherefore, it/ean be thewn, that the con- 
dition of this covenant, was real religion and holinefs of 
heart ; it will be manifeft, that this was the qualification. of 


sid 


church-memberfhip—or, was required -. and Pate y. 

the members of the Jewifh church. z y 
When God had brought them out of, Egypt to I 

Sinai, he faid unto them, ‘Exod. xix, '¢ Now therefore if 


% 
ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then — 
fhall ye be a peculiar treafure unto me above all people.” 
This fhows, that the condition on their part was to obey his 
voice and keep his covenant. God then proceeded in the 
KX.— Xx. chapters to declare to. them the commands and 
ftatutes, which comlitias the covenant that they melee 
keep. Among thefe were the ten commandments or mora 
law. And the fum of thefe as explained by our Savio 
to love God with all the heart, foul and mind, and ou 
bours as ourfelves. As therefore this covenant, included | 
commandments or moral law, which requires us to. love 70d, 
with allthe heart and our neighbour as ourfelves, it certainly 
required real religion or holinefs of heart This cannot ibe 
denied without gontradidting our Saviour’s explanation, a aad 
ailerting, that the moral Jaw does not ee of heart. 
k 


Ti 


Pi 


« 


(13) 

ae ‘ 

_ Andas the Hebrew church did promife to obey and keep this 
covenant; fo it is evident, that they did profefs real religion. 
For Mofes wrote all the words ofthe Lord. And he took 

| the book of the covenant, [containing theten commands and 


 Sother { es God had given] and read in the andience of the | 


people ;#Alnd they faid, all-that the Lord hath faid will we do, 
__ and be obedient.” Then further to ratify the folemn covenant 
between God and the people, ‘* Mofes took the blood and 
 fprinkled it on'the people, and faid, Behold the Blood of the 
 -eovenant, which the Lord bath made with you concerning all 
‘thefe words’ Exod. xxiv. 7,8. This fhows that real religion 

_ was, both quired of, and profefled by the Hebrew church. 
true holinels was required of this church, is further evi- 

4 dent from Levit. xix. 2. God, being about to enjoina num- 
ber of religious and moral inftitutions upon his church, intro- 
duced them with thefe words, ‘* Ye fhall be holy: ForI the 
Lord yor God am holy ;” fhewing, thatthe fame moral ho- 
linefs was required of them, which conftituted the divine cha- 
rater. Peter therefore quotesthe fame command, and ad- 


_ a@reiies te ¥ Chriltian church, 1 Pet. i. 46. “ Becaufe it is 
“mitten, Be ye holy, for Iam holy.” This plainly teaches, 
n 


at the fame moral holinefs was required of the Hebrew, ‘as. 


of the Chriftian church. How then can any imagine, that 
nothing but a ceremonial or typocal holinefs was required of 
the Hebrew church ? ’ 
aS. urther, that God did require real religion or right affections 
of heart, as the condition of that covenant, which he made with 
the Hebrew church or people, is abundantly manifeft from 
many paffages in Deut. where Mofcs rehearfed to the people 
the commands or requifitions of this covenant. Thus it is faid, 


Deut. vi. 3, 5. ‘* Hear therefore, O Ifrael, and obferve to do it, - 


that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increafe 
» mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promifed thee 
inthe land that foweth with milk and honey. And thou 
thal: leve the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all 
thy foul,” &c. Here we fee that one requirement of this cove- 
nant, and a condition, on which temporal bleflings ia Canaan 
vomifed, was, that they fhould love God with ail their 
and foul. And is anything more than this now requi- 
ved of the members of the Chriftian church? So chap. x. 12. 
*And now Urael what doth thé Lord thy God require of thee, 
but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in his-ways, and to love 
x ferve hima wich all thine heart and with all thy foul.” 
fap. xt, 13 »* “And it fhall come to pais, if ye will 


Sad a 
4 7” gale 


(4), . 
hearken diligently unto my commandments: the I 
your God, and to ferve him with all your h: 
f will give you the rain of your land in due 
teathes, as before obferved, that loving and’ 
all the heart, or real religion, was the ‘cont n 
éven temporal favors romifed to the Hebrey 
people. The fame idea is‘clearly taught in the! 29 
this chapter, “ For ifye will diligently: it 
mandments which I command yot to Tove the — 
Ged, to walk in his ways—Then will” c 
thefe nations from before you.” Ev: ce fro 
nefs, and Lebanon, from the river Euphrates, even ont 
urtermof fea, fhall your coaft be. Then fhalffho' man be 
to ftand before you.” Here loving ~ is 


pe ah 


commandments ts the condition, on™ 4 : to 


- Fale! 2 7 - me) . 
covenant title to the land’ of promife without love to God or : 


realreligion. Agreeably to this, God faid, Judges ii. 20, 21. 
*« Becaufe this people have tranfgrefled my covenant, which 
commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened yunto 
voice : I will not henceforth drive out any from belo 
of the nations, which Jofhua left ?” fuch words plainly 
that the poffeffion of Canaan was promifed themon condition - 
of mer ate covenant, given by Mofes ; which, as has — 
been already thewn, required real religion, or fupreme OaeS, 
God. . ee ere 
So it was commanded Jofhua, that he eA pitt 7 
according to all the law, which Mofes comman i hat. 
he fhould do according to all that is written therein ; for then” 
thon halt make thy way profperous, and fhalt have good fuc- 
cefs.” Jofhua i. 7,8. Here alfO fuccefs in taking poffef 
fion of the land of Canaamas promifed Jofhua on the cone | 
dition that he would obferve the law of Mofes, which required. — 
love to God with all the heart and foul. He therefore, ee 2 
3 


es 


folemm charge to the R ites, Gadites and half the tribes 
Manaifah, whe'they were returning to the land of their p 
feilion, faid, “ take diligent-heed to Ae th? commandmer 
law, which Méifes, the fervant of the Lord char ed you, 
the Lord yourGod, to walk inall his ways, and to ferye him 
with all your heart and foul.” Joffrua xxii. 5. not thefe 
words teach in the clearef{ manner, that God, im the law or 
covenont which he gave by Mofes, required fipreme love, . 


or holinefS of heart, «s its conditon ? & 
- - - “ . R 
Again, Deut. xxx. 3,5; 10." Molts by i of Jcho= 


Ae 
- yy 


, (15) 


_ wah, promifed, that God would turn the captivity of his people 
and bring them into the land, which thei fathers poffeffed, 
and multiply them, &c. ‘If thou fhalt hearken unto the vcice 
of the Lord thy God to keep his commandments and ftatutes, 
) which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn un- 
“to the Lord thy God with all thine heart and. foul.” This 
paflage clearly proves, that God in his covenant with that peo- 
he contained in. the book ofthe law, required them to love 
him with all the heart, and that this was the conditon, on 
which he promifed to.grant them, even temporal bleffings and 
‘deliverances, —~ “ui 
The requirements of this covenant, which God made with 
_ the Lraclites and what was profeffed by them, are very. clear- 
_ ly exprefled chap. xxvi. 16, 17, 18, 19. This day, the Lord 
thy God hath commanded thee to do thefe flatutes and. judge- 
ments: Thou fhalt therefore keep and do them with all thine 
heart, and with all thy foul.” This is what God. required of 
his ancient church ; and does he now require more of the Chrif 
‘tian church than to keep his commands with all their heart ? 
le next verfe expreffles what they promifed or profefled. 
Thou haft avouched [or profefled] the Lord this day to be thy 
‘God; ‘and to walk in his ways, and to keep his ftatutes, and 
commandrnents, and to hearken to his. voice.” And does any 
Chriftian church now profefs or promife more than this? And 
in confequence of this their profeffion it is faid, « And the Lord 
hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he 
hath promifed thee : And to make thee high above all nations, 
in praife and in name, and in honor, that thou mayeltbe a holy 
people unto the Lord thy God.” What then can be more 
evident, than that real religion was required of, and profef- 
fed by God’s ancient church, and that it was required of 
themin that covenant which was, the conftitution of that 
» church? ‘ 
___ This is confirmed beyond all rational difpute by, what took 
- place in the days of fofiah. The laws and commands, which 
were delivered by God to his people in the wildernefs, and 
ea by Motesin Deuteronomy, were written ia a-book, 


; 


| 


=. 


acs led the book of the law, and the book of the covenant ; 
_bécaufe it contained the requilitions and promifes of the cove- 
nant, which God made with his people. This book wasfound in 
the houfe of the Lord in the days of Jofiah, and he aflembied 
the people of Judah to renew covenant with the Lord, 2 
Myst Kxill. 2, 3. “ And he read in their ears all the words 

ef the book ofthe covenant, Agnd the king made a cove- 
oa 


nant before'the Lord, to walk after the 
his commands, and*teftimonies, “and 
heart and foal, to perform all the wo 
that were written in this book: And allt 
the covenant.” Here we may notice, that 
ed covenant, they promifed «to Df ortdin vie 
keep his commandments with all ‘their I 
that they did this “to perform the wor ds 
This clearly fhews, that this covenant’ fequ 
real religion. This is further evident ™fr 
of this chapter. There it is faid of Jofiah, « / 
him was there no king before him, that turned to the 
with’all his heart and with all his foul, tong to. Pai Pe | | 
Jaws of Mofes.”” Here his turning to the Lord haath ith all his 
heart and foul is declared to be aeéording to ‘the | law 
or covenant, teaching, that this’ was its re ment. Ac 
cordingly the ‘Pfalmift fpeaking “of their promif 
Pfaluwn lxxviii. 36, 37- * Neverthelefs they did flatte 
with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongue 
For their Aeart was not right with him ;? fhowing that they 
profeffed to have'their heart or’ affections right wi : 
otherwife they would not have been guilty of | lying 1g it 
profeffions, becaufe their heart was notri ‘ NOD FES, 
This fentiment is alfo corroborated. by ‘the’ words C 
apoftle, Rom»ii. 28,29. ‘ For heis not a , whe 
outwardly.” Bat he isa Jew, who is one inwardly eT eae 
words’ plainly fhow, that real piety was require Fey NY 
fefled by the members of the Jewifh church, Dee a 
none were'real Jews, or what they profeffed to be; il 
they had real religion, ‘or were fo ee, For if rab 
ety were not profeffed by them jh it be faid, | = 
none were realJews, who were rot iin” anitch heart ? ? 
If mere external obedience was what God’s covenant r 
red of that church, as fome imagine ; then all would So 
been real Jews—or what ‘they profelledy who were fo out- 
wardly, or yielded an external obedience ; which is di recy 
contrary to the declaration of the apottle, vA greea p to. 
this, Chrift ‘calls ‘Nathaniel “an Hfraelite indeed,” ufe 
truly pious. Does not this plainly teach, that none were 
Jews or Ifraelites indeed—were what thicy _ profelled land 
were required to bey unlefs like Nathaniel bey pofleifed ‘Teal 
piety. | F 
Omitting many other paflages which might be eniteaa, 
is it not abandently evident, shat real religen’ or right Sie. 


(17) 

tions of heart were as really required of, and profefled by the 
members of the Jewith, as of the Chriftian church. And as 
the fame qualifications were required by God for memberfhip 
in both churches, it is manifeft, they are one and the fame 

- ghurch. ; 
__ Isit not furprifing, that any, in direét contradi@ion to all 
thefe plain declarations: of the word of God, can imagine, as 
the Baptilts generally do, that God did not require real reli- 
gion in the covenant, which he made with his ancient people, 
and that they might according to God’s requirements become 
members of his church, and fo perform the conditions of his 
covenant as to be entitled to its promifes without any reli- 
gion of heart? This covenant required them to love and 
ferve God, and to keep his commands with all their heart 
‘and foul; and if this does not imply real religion, what 
does ? Are there any paflages in the bible, which more clear- 
ly or ftrongly exprefs true piety? God {peaking of his co- 
_venant, Pfalm 1. 16. faysto the wicked, “ What haft thou 
to do—that thou fhouldeft take my covenant in thy mouth ?” 
This plainly teaches, that the wicked had no right to take 
_ God’s covenant into their mouth, or profefs to affent to it; 
and that confequently this covenant required real holinefs as 
its condition. For if it did not, then the wicked might con- 
fiftently enter into it—yea, might fulfil all its conditions 
while impenitent, It appears therefore, from this paflage, 
that God viewed his covenant very differently from whatthey ~ 
do, who fuppofe, that it did not require holinefs of heart, 
and that impenitent finners might confiftently take it upon 
them, and even comply with its requifitions. Befides, if it did 
not require the heart, how. could they be guilty of lying and 
flattering in profefling to comply with its requirements, be- 
caufe their hearts were not right ? And how could the arof- 
tle declare, that he was not a Jew who was one outwardly, if 
external obedience was all ihat was required for memlsérfhip 
inthe Jewifh church ? And why did God finally break off 
the Jews from their church-ftanding “becaufe of unbelief,” 
if faith was not required by him, as theterm of memberfhip? 
Many bewilder themfelves in this matter by looking at 
the practice of the Hebrew church rather than at God’s re- 
quirements.” ‘Chey fee, that the Ifraelites all profeffedly en- 
tered into God’s covenant, and became members of his 
church ; although the greater part, probably had no real re- 
ligion.. Hence they conclude, that this was not required as 3 
qualification for covenanting, or church-ftanding under that 


C 


(8) | 


difpenfation. But might we not as well arg 
ligion is not required as a qualification for m berfl 
Chrillian church 5 becaufe in fome ages this church 
very corrupt, and but very few of its member anh 
any true piety ! ? But thus.to look at the pradtice che ehngcl, 
inftead of the divine inftitution or requifil 7 to in- 
“‘numerable errors and miftakes. If we would } 
truth, we mutt look at God’s requirements, which 
in the leaft invalidated by the praétice of a church. - iW hae 
‘ever then may have been the condu@ of profeffors m the 
Jewith or Chriftian church, it is manifeft, that God has alw 
required holiaefs of heart as the term of covenanting under 
both difpenfations. And from the famenefs of the qu; alifica- 
‘tions for memberfhip under both difpenfations it appears, 
“that the church is the fame. aS 

Since many, who allow, that real holinefs or ‘réligion is 

required of the members of ‘the Chriftian_ church, v ftrenu- 
oully deny, that itwas required in God's’ covenant ‘with his 
_ancie! nt church ; let us compare the terms or profeffion, re- 
quired in boih churches. Under the new Teftament difpen- 
fauon ‘after Chri was manifefted in the flefh, faith in him 
or a believing in him with all the heart was required asa term 
of admifiion into the Chriftian church. "The terms re quired 
in the Abrahamic and Mofaic covenants, and profelled by 
God’s ancient church, were to ‘walk before God and be’ per- 
fect (or fincere)--to love him, walk in his ways, and keep 
all his commandments with all the heart and foul??? New 
thefe requirements of God’s covenant with the Hebrew 

church, are certainly quite as extenfive, : and as ° reflive ‘of 
real_holine& or religicn ; as believing’ in’ Chrift with all the 
“heart, which is required as the term of memberthip. in the 
Chritian church. How’ ttrange them that any can fuppofe, 
that real réligion was not as miich « ‘required in God’s cove- 

rant with the Iicbrcew chorch, as it is in his covenant with 
the Chiiftian ? 

3. The rules cf moral condu&, and of difcipline’ which | 


God enjoined | upon the Jewifh and Chiiftian churches are in 


many refpeéts very fimilar ; and thisis another evidence cf — 


their bas effen tally the f2me. The cemmand to the He- 
brew church was *‘Phou fhalt love thy neighbor as thyfeli— 


thou fkalt not Vex, nor epprefs a fliras ‘ger—thou fhalt love | 


him a8 thyfelf ft ‘Sue meet thy enciny’s “Gx cr als going 
aftray, thou fhalt frely bring it ‘bac k” teaching” cea iy 
ought te be dilpofed to do go d to their encinies. And the 


t 


— 


{ 19) 


diretions to the members of the Chriftian. church are, “« Love 
one another—do good to all; as ye have opportunity — Lov: 
your enemies, and do good to them that hate you,” &ec. 
‘God in his laws and commandments to his ancient church 
ftri@ly forbade adultery, fornication, fodomy, idolatry, witch- 
craft, theft, lying, falfehood, fraud, oppreflion, profane {wear- 
ing, revenge, grudging, and other fimilar immoralities, {ce 
Exod. xxi.—xxili. chap. and Levit. xix. and’xx.. chap. | And 
thefe fame vices are exprefsly forbidden by the new Tefta- 
ment’ in the Chriftian church. The directions concerning 
the difcipline in the ancient church were “Thou fhalt net 
hate thy brother ; Thou fhalt in any wife rebuke thy neigh- 
bor [or brother] and not fuffer fin upon him.” By this 


~ command they were obligated to rebuke or reprove their 


neighbors, whenever they fell into fin, and thus to endeavor 
to reclaimthem. Agreeably to this, Chrilt’s command to 
the Chriftian churchis, ‘ If thy brother trefpafs again{t thee, 
[i. e. be guilty ofany open fin] go and tell him ‘his fault,’’ 
and endeavor to reclaimhim. Ani ifthe offending brother 
repents, and makes confefion and fatisfaction for his offence, 
he is to be forgiven-and received again into the Chriftian 
church. So when an Ifraclite tranfgrefled any of God’s com- 
mands, or inftitutions, moral or ceremonial, which was not 
punifhable by death, he was commanded to bring his ‘fin-ct- 
fering—to lay his hand on the head of it as a token of con- 


 feffion and repentance ; and the prieft was to make an atone- 


ment for him by offering it, and thus he was to be forgiven. 


See Levit. iv. v. and vi. chap, If an offend:r in the Chri!- 
tian church remains obftinate and impenitent, or perfeveres 
in his fins ;. he is to be caft off and excommunicated. Ife 
will not hear the church he isto be unto you as an heathen 
man.—They are to withdraw from every one, that walketh 
diforderly, and purge out from among them fuch wicked 
perfons. Soin the Hebrew church, “The fowl that doth 
ought prefumptuoufly, [which doubtlefs implies all obftinate 
perfeverance in difobedience to, or the neglec&t of, any diviiie 
command, as well as more grofs heinous fins] the fame re- 
proached the Lord ;. and that foul fhall be cut off from bis 


i Seg Becaufe he hath defpifed the word of the Lord.” 


umb. xiii. 30. It appears then, that all immoral conduct 


and tranfgreflions of God’s commands were matters of dif- 


cipline in the Hebrew, as well as in the Chriftian church. 
Since therefore the rules of moral conduét, and of diicipline 


‘in both churches were fo fimilar in many refpects, it corrobo- 


> 


¢ 26 } - 
sates the eviderice already exhibited, that t 
the fame church, under two different difpenfati 
Had therefore the requirements of God’s 
attended to in the admiffion of perfons into the 
church, and had the difcipline God enjoined, bee: 
ferved, that church would have been as vilibly 
‘ual, and free from corruptions, as the Chriftian church ever 
has been. The reafon then, why the Hebrew church at 
times became fo formal, corrupt and degenerate, w 
thefe rules of admiffion and difcipline were got ftrialy at- 
tended to. God therefore fpeakingsof the corruption and 
degeneracy of this church, fays “ Her priefts have. violated 
my law, and have profaned mine holy things; "They hae 
put no difference between the holy and profane.” Ezek, xxii, 
z6. And it is owing to a fimilar negledt.of the rules of ad- 


very corrupt, bs aris RG Aun ae 

4. The feripture gives the fame charaer both of the 
Jewith and Chriftian churches, which. fhews them to be the 
fame. God faidto the Hebrew church, Exod. xix. 5, 6 
«* Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and oa 
my covenant,.then ye fhall be a peculiar. treali 
aboveall people- And ye fhall be unto me.a kingdom of 
ptiefls, and an holy nation.” And in Deuteronomy it is faid, 
“The Lord hath chofen thee to be a peculiar people unt 
himfelf.’”’ If this is compared with the defcription given ° 
the Chriftian charch, 1 Pet. ii. 9. it will appear to be almo 
exa@ly the fame. ‘ Ye are a chofen , generation, 2, roya 
pricfthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.” . This aad 
acter of the Chriftian church was evidently quoted from that, 
given of the Hebrew, and is eflentially the fame ; confequent- 
ly they are both the fame church. 


Again, God, or rather Chri (who in the feripture was the 


God of Abraham and of the Hebrew church) was repre- 
fented as the huiband of his ancient church or people, and 
they as his wife or fpoufe. Thus Jer. ii 14. “Turn, O 
backfliding children, faith the Lord, for I am married unto 


miffion and difcipline, that Chriltién churches often, become 


‘i unto me . j 


‘ 


| 


: 


you.” Alfochap. xxxi. 32. “ They brake my covenant, al-- 


though I was an bnfband unto them.” . “Thus Chrift was 
reprefented as the hufband of the Hebrew church, and they 
as his {poute, on account of their covenant, obligations to be 
his. Agrecably to this, the Chrilian church im tl ¢ new 
Teftament is. called, “ the bride, the Lambs wife,” and 


‘ 


e ( or) 


ee 


Chrift is faid to be the head of the church, as the hafband#s 
ehead ofthe wife. : st Som 
~ Since therefore the Hebrew and Chriftian churches are both 
teprefented in a marriage relation to Chrift, as being his - 
fpoufe, and he as being a hufband to them ; it is a proof, that 
are one and the fame. ot Fan ' 
_ Chrift alfo is Riled the thepherd of ‘his ancient church.— 
* Give ear, O fhepherd of lirael, thou that leadef Jofeph 
like a flock.” Pfalm lxxx.1. And ishe not reprefented as 
ftanding in the fame relationto the Chriftian church? «I 
am the ‘good fhepherd, and know my fheep.” If then, Chrift 
is the thepherd of both the Hebrew and Chriftian charches, © 
and they are both his flock or fheep, does it fot “fhew, that 
they are effentially thefamechurch ? ~~ = ma 
- §. That the Hebrew and Chriftian cherch is the fame, 
may beargued from the confideration, that the facraments 
or ordinances of the church, under both difpenfations, are 
fimilar in their import and defign. Thus circumcifion and 
baptifm, and the paffover, and the Lord’s fupper, are defigned 
to anfwer the fame ends in the church under different dif 
- 18. Cireumcifion wasa token of ‘the covenant of grace 
between God and thofe who applied this tcken to themielves 
or children; as has been already fhown. It denoted, that they 
gave their affent to this covenant, andthus wasa feal or token 
of their fauh. Accordingly the apoftle calls it, “a feal of 
the righteoufnefs of the faith which Abraham had being yet 
uncircumcifed ;” fhowing, that he firft believed, and then cir- 
cumcifed himfelf ‘and houfehold in token of his faith. So 
baptifm now is a token of faith in Chrift, and thus a feal of 
the covenant of grace. For Philip told the eunuch, that 
he might be baptized, if he believed with all his heart ; which 
plainly thows, that baptifm is -a token of faith, which is’ the 
condition of the covenant of grace ; and thus itis a feal of 
this covenant and a token of affent toit. When therefore a 
perion dedicates himielf or children inthe ordinance of bap- 
tifm, it is @ token of his faith, and fo ef the covenant of grace 
betwees God and him. In this refpe@ circurcifion and bap- 
tifm appear to be of the fame import and defign. 
_ 2dly. Circumcifion, by taking away a part -of the fleth, 
denoted the neceffity of a change of heart, and thes it taught 
the native depravity of mankind, and their need of {piritual 
renovation. Mofes evidently underftocd itin this fenfe, and 
therefore fays to the Ifraelites, Deut. x. 16. “ Circumeife 


( 22} 


theforefkin of your hearts, and be no. mor 
Deut, xxx. 6. The Lord thy God wile’ ul 
and the,heart of thy feed to love the Lordthy God w 

: ie _dec 
. the fpirit.” 
: he rt _ 


58 


seca 


po 


ng 


i 


on 


te 
ed or 1 i 
ed by the Haly Spirit. naa ee Lat res 
gdly. Circumcifion might typify or ‘point to the bloo of 
Chnift, which cleanfeth from all fin, and fo. be defignec ‘to 


aniw 


mer, “the blood of {prinkling,” as the only 


fame end. It is adapted to imprefs the mir foe “a fenfe of 
blood of Red 


grew Tee ee 


and juftification. ) RT ee i Mpc, 
. -4thly.. Cireumcifion was the initiating ordinance or DOr 
ef admiffion into God’s ancient church in this fenfe, that id 
one could become a niember of that church, be en 1 to i 
privileges, or partake. of the pallover, efs circumcifed. 


“For no ducircumcifed perfon {hall eat t nereof.” 30 no 
perfon can riglitly become a member of the chriftian chu 


er be admitted to the Lord’s fupper, the ¢ hriftian paifo ver 


unlefs baptifed. 


2 


In thefe various particulars the import and defign of cir- 


cumcifion and baptifm are fimilar, and they v 
aniwer the fame endsin the church of God un 
difpenfations.. . . mt HVPE 


Le IR OY 


The refemblance alfo between the paflover and the bg 


fupper is very plain and flriking. The pafchal lam! 
ed Chrilt, the Lamb of God. _ Its being killed, the fprin! 
“of its blcod upon the door to fave from the def roying an 


pifi- 


=, 
a | 
Ae 
J 
ate 
» 


ee ee ee a eee 


(3) 


roatting it in fire, &c. ftrikingly denote the diftrefling fufferings 
and death of the Saviour, and the falvation of thofe who are 
fprinkled with his blood. And are not thefe fame truths rep- 
 refented in a lively manner by the Lord’s fupper? In this, . 
there isa reprefentation of the broken and wounded body of 
_ Chrift, and of his blood fhed for finners. Hence the apoftle 
fpeaking of the Lord’s fupper, ufes figuratively the very lan- 
guage of the pafchal feat, «« For even Chrift our paffover is 
facrificed for us.’”? Therefore let us keep the feaft, not with 
old Jeaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickednefs ; 
but with the unleavened bread of fincerity and truth.” Cor. 
v. 7,8. The chief difference between the paflover and the 
Lord’s fupper is, that one pointed to a Saviour to come, and 
the other toa Saviour already come. Since therefore the fa- 
craments under ‘he old and new difpenfation fo perfectly agree, 
as to their defiga and import; is‘it not abundantly evident, 
that the Hebrew and Chriftian church is the fame? 

6. We hall adduce further proof of this doctrine from 
plain exprefs paflages of fcripture. Thus Heb. iii 2, 3, 5, 
6. both the Hebrew and Chriftian churches are called God’s 
or Chrift’s houfe, and are fpoken of as the fame houfe. Spea- 
king of Jefus Chrift, itis. faid, ““ Who was faithful to him 
that appointed him, as alfo Mofes was faithful in all his [i-e. 
God’s or Chrift’s] houfe. Forthis man, [referring to Chrift] 
was accounted worthy of more glory than Mofes, in as much 
as he who hath builded the houfe hath more honor than the 
-houfe.’? 

By Chrift’s houfe here is evidently meant his church, which 
in feripture is frequently called his houfe. And as it was 
that church, in which Mofes was faithful, ic muft mean the 
Hebrew church. This church is here declared to be Chrift’s, 
for it is faid, that he built it. ‘* And Mofes was verily faith- 
ful in all his [i. e- Chrilt’s] honfe as a fervant, fora teftimo- 
ny of thofe things which were to be fpoken after; but Chrift 
as a fonover his own houfe; whofe houle are we’ referring to 
profeffing Chriftians. ; 

Here we may obferve, that Chriftians or the Chriftian 
church are called Chrift’s houfe, and fo is the Hebrew church; 
and that Chrift, is declared to be the builder of the Hebrew 
as well asof the Chriftian church ; which fhows, that they 
are the fame ; as they are both Chrift’s church. 

. Further our Saviour faysto the Jews, “The kingdom of 

God fhall be taken from you, and be given to a nation bring- 
ing forth the fruits thereof.” ‘Matt. xxi. 43, By the king- 


(24) 


‘dom of God here is meant their church or 
which have long fince been taken from them. _ 
fore that very “ kingdom of God” which was ta rom the 
Jews “ becaufe of their unbelief,” has been given to the be- 
lieving Gentiles ; it plainly manifelts, that the Ch church 
is effentially the fame as the Jewifh—is but the comtinuance - 
of that under a new difpenfation. ch aaly ate hale 
Again, in the prophecies concerning the calling of | 
Gentiles, they are reprefented as being i to God’s 
ancient church and filling the place of the ews, who wer 
broken off and becoming ene church with “hema, which 
fhows, that the Chriftian church is but acontinuation of .the 
Jewifh. Thus Ifai. xlix. 18—22. God fpeaking of Zion, 
his ancient church, fays, “ Lift up thine eyes round about, 
and behold : all thefe gather themfelves together and come tg 
thee : As I live faith the Lord, thou fhalt furely clothe thee’ 
with them all as with an omament _The children which 
thou fhalt have, after thou hak loft the other, fhall fay again in 
thine ears, The place istco {trait for me: give place to me 
that I may dwell. Then thou fhalt fay in atin heart, Who 
hath begotten me thefe, feeing I have loft my children, and am 
_defolate a captive, and removing to and fro? Thus faith the © 
Lord God, Behold, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles— 
and they fhall bring thy fons in their arms, and thy daughters 
fhall be carried upon their fhoulders.” Itis evident from 
this paflage, that the church to which the Gentiles were.ga- 
thered and united, was one, that had loft her other children 
or members, and had been defolate; a captive, &e. And this 
defcription exaétly applies to the Hebrew church, which had ~ 
been frequently defolate and in captivity, and which, upon 
the introduion of the Chriftian dif tion, loft the greater 
part of her ether children or members, who were broken of 
becaufe of unbelief. /nd their place, according to the pro- 
phecy, was more than Silled with Gentile converts. ‘This ~ 
prophecy therefore exactly correfponds with what the apoltle 
fays Rom. xi. about the unbelieving Jews being broken off 
from the olive tree, and tke believing Gentiles being gr. in| 
among the remaining branches; and it clearly fhows,ithat 


eee eee eee 


. 

_ the Gentile converts would be incorporated into the ancient 

Jewifh church. Confequently the Chriftian and Jewith 
chmches are but one and the {ume church under two different 
cupenfations. he fame fentiment is plamly taughtin many 

oiler timilar prophecies concerning the calling m of the Gen- 

tiles. Itmay allo be obferved, that whem thefe Gentiles were 


(35) 


— 


q 6 God's ancient church, they are reprefented as bring- 
the children of the church in their arms. ‘This may inti. 
| Mate that children of Gentile Chriftian parents are to be de- 
dicated to God, and to enjoy the fame place and privileges in 
the Chriftian church, that children of Jewifh parents didin the 
“ancient church. m ; pent 
That the believing Gentiles were thus a@ually incorporated 

. God’s ancient church is clearly. taught by the apoftle. 

Eph. ii. Reminding the Gentile converts of their former un- 
happy fituation in time paft, he fays—* At that time ye were 
without Chrift, being aliens from the commonwealth of Ifrael, 

_ and ftrangers from the covenant of promife, having no hope 
and without God in the world.” Then mentioning how 
Chrift had broken down the middle wall of partition between 
Jews and Gentiles, that he might reconcile both unto God in 
one body, he fays, to the believing Gentiles, ** Now therefore 
ye are no more ftrangers and foreigners ({irangers from the 
covenants of promife, and aliens or foreigners from the com- 
monwealth or church of Ifrael) but fellow-citizens with the 
faints (of God’s ancient church, belonging to the fame com* 
taunity and partaking of the fame privileges) and of the hovfe- 
hold of God”—« And are built upon the foundation of the 
apoftles and prophets, Tefus Chrift himfelf being the chief 
corner-ftone, this fhows that the Hebrew church, to whom 
the ancient prophets miniftered ; and the Chriftian to whom 
the apoftles miniflered, are built upon the fame foundation, 

Jefis Chrift himfelf being the chief corner-ftohe, which 
fapports and unites both in one. Confequently the Chriftian 
and Hebrew church muit.be effentiall: ame, 

This truth is alfo abundantly evident from our text and 
context. ‘Thus, in verf@er7zth’ it is faid, that fome of the 
branches, denoting the unbelieving Jews, were broken off, and 

_the believing Gantiles were graffed in among the Jews or 
natural branches which ftood; and with them partook “ of 
the*root and fatnefs of the olive-tree.” Now what church can 
this be, denoted by the olive-tree, from which unbelieving Jews 
were broken off, and into which the believing Gentiles were 

affed intheirroom? ~. Pony 

The Baptifts fay that it was the Chriftian church. But the un- 
believing Jews were never in that church, as diltind from the 
Jewifh, either really or profeffedly, and fo could not be broken 
off from it. Would it not be very improper and unintelligible 

- for the apoftle to fay, that the greater part of the Jews were 
broken “6 from the Chriftian church becaule of unbelief, when 

D 


~ 


U5) 


he merely meant, that they had. never, Oi 
Yea it he have been juft as inprep ; 
all the unbelieving heathen had been4 
tian church, Beak they had never 
mn then that it muft be the Jewith cl 
clicving Jews were broken off ; for ¢ 
vidbly or profeiledly members. _ de os 4 
Since therefore the aebipion 4 ’ 
vifible Jewith church thofe w 
take with them in its bleflings and p 
the Chriftian is but she contin: ar 
Jewith church. ; 
Further, ‘verfe 20. “ Well, be 
Jews) were broken off, and thou (i. e. 
eft by faith’ This hows, that fz { 
ing both in the. Jewith and Chriftian church. 
were broken off from their church ar 
lief, or for ¥ want of Ait, and d the 


Sth ae pais y 

Again, pat 23, it is faid, that Jews, i ‘Wepabide. 

not {till in unbelief, fhall be graffed in 5” aa Reed “how 
much more big he nasais. be th be 


roken off, were, upon their eta to be 
Chriftian church. Their being pease : t 
called being graffed into their own olive-tre uae a 
fented, that they were graffedi into the fame o eC 
from which they were broken off. This clearly 

the Chriftian church ts but the GS gece 
church. For if the Chriftian chu ia 
from the Jewith, and not a continu sr ohlagle! the fs 
imagine, hat propric Poesia there be in. calling be lta 
church “ their. own olive-tree,” fince erage ea 
never in any fenfe belonged to this church, either vifibi rg 
really ? And how improper to repreient_ ee Del we. 
into che Chriftian church, as being graffed i into:the 
tree, from which they are broken off for their unbeli 
they are called the zatural branches of this olive-tr 
into which they were to be received if they « 
unbelief. But ifthe Chriftian church is not-the 

of the Jewith, but entircly different ; whatm nin n 
ety could there be in galling thefe unbelieving: ws 
branches of the Chriltian church, or oliv 


(27) 
this firppofition they qpuld in no fenfe be the natural branches 


eae But if according to the apoftle’s, reprefeatation © 


der the Chriftian church the fame as the Jewith, being 

the fame church continued under-a new difpen{ation ; we caa 
_ eafily fee the propriety of calling the“unbelieving Jews the nat- 
1 branches of the Chriftian-church or olive tree; as they are 
natural defcendants of this churchr under, the. old difpenfa- 
tion. Ass therefore the Chriftian church, into #hich the Jews, 
if they remain not in unbelief, are to be graff is called their 
own olive-tree, and they are faid to be the natural branches of 


it, it is very evident that this church is buat the continuation 


and extenfion of the Jewifh. Accordingly the apoftie, Gal. 
iii. fpeaks of the bleffngs of Abraham, (thofe blefiings pro- 
mifed in the Abrahamic covenant. and enjoyed by the Jewith 
church) coming on. the Gentiles through Jefus Chrit: and 
fays, “ If ye are Chrift’s, then are ye Abrahams feed, and 
heirs according to the promife,” fhowing that allbelievers are 
the childrenof Abraham ; and that therefore he is the father 
ef the Chriftian as well as of the Jewifh church. All the truly 


pious both in the Jewifh and Chriftian church are the realy 


_ children of Abraham ; for he is the father cf all who believe, 
whether circumcifed or uncircumcifed, as the apoftle declares. 
Confequently, all profeffors of religion under both difpenfations 
are profeffedly his children. But as all, “which were of 
ifrael,” or members of the Jewith church, “ were not Lirael,” 
or the true children of Abraham, ; but many.were Jews out- 
wardly who were not fo inwardly; fo'at prefent there are 

- undoubtedly many members of the Chriftian church, who are 


outwardly or profefiedly Chriftians and Abraham’s children, 


thatare not fo at heart. But omitting many other paflages 
that might be mentioned, is there not very clear and abundant 
evidence, that the Jewifh and Chriftian church are effentially 
oneand thefame? But, aan d 
Laftly, fince the Baptifts in general very confidently deny, 


that real religion was requized in the covenants, which God 


made with Abraham, and with the Hebrew church in the 


wildernefs; it may be well to examine this fentiment, and 


fider forne of its confequences. 
ft. In the Abrahamic covenant God required as the con- 
dition, that Abraham fhould “ walk before him, and be per- 
-?. And in all the revelations he made to the patri- 
archs before the days of Mofes, there is no requirement more 
expreflive of real religion than this in the Abrahamic cove- 
“nant. Uf therefore real religion. was not ‘required inthe 


(28) 
Abrahamic covenant, it will folate, that 


red, or even mentioned real religion in any of 
that he communicated to mankind before Moi 
a period of about 2500 years. LER 

And in the covenant, which God made Sehvoeae we 
church in the wildernefs, he required them to fear the Lord 
their God, to walk in all his ways, and toleve and ferve 
‘him with all their heart and foul—to cireumcife the foreskin 
of their heart and be no more ftiff-neeked. Deut. x. 12, 16. 
‘They were alfo required to worlhip before the Lord their 
God, and to keep his ftatutes and judgments with all their 
heart, and foul, Deut. xxvi. 10,16. And on condition that 
they would obey his voice, and keep his covenant, God pro- 
mifed to blefs them, be their God, and take them for his pe- 
culiar people. Now there are certainly no requirements in 
the Old Teftament more exprefiive of real: holine/s or reli 
of heart, than thefe inthis covenant. If therefore God did, 
not require real religion as the condition of his covenant 
with the ancient church, he has no where required or jen-— 
joined it in the Old Teftament. But can any one imagine, | 
that God, in all his revelations to mankind for 4000 years, 
never required real religon or right affeGtions of heart ? as ; 
muft be the cafe, if it was not required in the covenants, 
made with Abraham and the Hebrew chutch. ‘This cer- 
tainly is very contrary to the reprefentation of our Saviour. 
For he declared, that the fum of the law or Mofaic dif 

penfation and the prophets istoloye God with.all the heart, 
oe our neighbor as ourfelves; which is the eflence of: tote 
real religion. 

Further, it has been univerfally allowed, that, pa ey ' 
Pfalms is as expretlive of trus piety and devotion, as any 
part of the bible. But there is not one paflage in all that 
book, which more ltrongly expreiles real religion, than the 
requirements of the covenant “ tolove and ferve God, walk 
in his ways, and keep his ftatutes with all the heart and foul.’ Cad 
Confequently there is not one word faid in the book of | Pfalms 


about real piety or religion, if it. was not requires in the ca- 
venant, made with the Hebrew church, ach h ci 
Therefore it mult be allowed either that reab Yr was 


required of, and profetled by the Hebrew church, arid. fo «this 
church is effentially the fame with the Chriftian ; or elf it 
mult be denied, that God ever required, or €ven mentioned 
real religion in all the Old Teftament.,. ,But»whieh of; theie 


er 


(39) 


—_——— 


Ofitiovs is true, no perfon acquaiated with his bible can 
be forwmoment. Se 
“P2d. Tt appears as if it would be inconfitent with the divine 
“Bolinefs and perfeétions to enter into a covenant with moral 
Beings, which did not require real holinefs or love to God 
“as its condition, and to promife them peculiar favors upon 
“mere external; unhely obedience. I: would in fa& be fay- 
ang, that real love 16 God was ‘a hard requirement, and 
therefore he was willing to difpenfe with it. There have 
been great clamours and cavils agaimft God in this wicked 
world, becanfe he requires depraved creatures, who are whol- 
ly oppofed to his holy charadter, to exercife fupreme love to 
him, and to do whatever they dco to his glory. Sinners con- 
tend, that thisis avery hard and unreafonable requirement. 
But God in his word mififts, that thisisjaft and fit, and that 
his law, which requires this, is holy, juftand good. Thisis 
One great part of the controverfy, which fubfilts in this world 
between Godandfinners, | 
» Iftherefore God in fuch an important covenant as that, 
which he made with the people of Iirael, and which was to be 
known thro’ his va{t dominions, had relinquifhed his claim on 
_ the heart, by requiring nothing but external, heartlefs obedi- 
‘ etice, and had ftipulated to grant them peculiar bleflings on 
any condition,-{hort of holy obedience ; it would have been, 
ina very public ‘manner, giving up ima great degree the 
controverfy offinners. The language of fuch condué in God 
would have been, that love to him oz obedience of heart was 
rather a hard, unreafonable requirement, as finners objected 5 
and that therefore he was willing to difpenfe wthit. How 
derogatory would fach condué be to the divine character, and 
how would it countenance the cavils of the wicked, that it is 
hard torequire the heart ? How alfo would it have encou- 
_ raged the Ifraelites ina formal unholy obedience ? For if Gad 
+ didnot require the heart or real religion in thofe laws and 
commands, which conftituted the requirements of his cove- 
nant, and which were all that he pretended to require of 
them ; they might jultly conclude, ‘that ke did not mean to 
infiit on the heart. Forin all the revelations and dire@tions 
which God’ gave his people by Mofes, or by the prophets af- 
_ terwards, hé neverintimated to them, thathe required, or even 
wifhed any thing- more of them, than to fulfil the reqnirements 
offhis covenant. Itis faid that the Lord teftified againit 
Ifrael and Judah by all the prophets, faying, turm ye from 
"your evil ways, ahd kecp my commandments and ftatutes, 


(30) : 

' ——ee 

according to, the law, which I comm your fathers. 
If therefore this covenant did not require the heart or a holy. 


obedience, then he [fraelites had juttreafon to conclude, that. 
God did not mean to infit on the heart, and thus it was die 
rectly calculated to encourage them. in a heartlefs unholy. 
obedience. . ae phen bile are ont 
What an impeachment then would it be of God’s holy . 
character te fuppofe, that his covenant with his ancient churclr 
did not require the heart or real holinefs, and fo hada dire& 
tendency to encourage amere formal, unholy obedience, by 
giving them reafon to conclude, that he did not mean to infil — 
on the heart? How different is this idea of the requirements. 
of the covenant from the reprefentation, which. Mofes gave of . 
it, when he fays.to the people, ‘¢ And now Ifrael, what doth 
the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear him to walk in 
all his ways—to loye and ferve the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy foul.” In this and many other pafla- 
ges Motes exprefsly tells them, that. God’s covenant with. 
them required them to love and keep lis commands with all 
the heart, and that it was on this condition, that they were, . 
to be his people and be entitled to temporal bleflings. . Thus 
he carefully guards them againft the idea that God did not. 
ean to infiit on the heart, and that hiscovenant did not re-. 
quire a holy obedience as its condition. iia <iia de 
Further, if God did not require holinefS of heart in his co-. 
venant with Ifrael, as the condition of the promifed bleffings ; 
then he in fact ptomifed to blefs and reward them for doings, . 
which might be performed with an impenitent heart, or, in 
other words, for finful, unholy doings. For there is no me- 
dium in moral aGions between fin and holinefs, and all mo-— 
val ations, done with an unholy heart, mult be finful. .“ A 
corrupt tree cannot bring ferth good fruit.” Had God 
therefore, in his covenant, promifed peculiar bleflings to fuch. 
daing or obedience, as might be performed with an impeni- 
tent heart; would it not have been rewarding and encou-.. 
raging impenitence, and thus have been the foundation of a 
high impeachment of the divine character ? Would it not _ 
imply, that impenitent finners may do what is pleafing in. the 
fight ofa holy God, and thus contradié& the declaration of. 
the apoftle, that ‘ without faith it is impofiible to pleafe- 
him ?” Did not the Moft High ‘exprefsly declare to his an- 
cient church, that the facrifices of the wicked were an abom.. 
mation to him? Did he not alfo manifeft a high difappreba- 
tion of the unholy obedience and. religious d rvices » the ; 


(33) 
—— 
wicked ? Ifa. i. chap. “To what purpofe is the multitude 
pp Sone facrifices unto me? faiththe Lord. Bring no more 
vain oblations ; incénfe is an abomination unto me; the new 
‘moons and fabbaths; the calling of aflemblies, I cannot away 
‘with, it is iniquity, even the folemn mecting. Your new 
‘moons and appointed feafts my foul hateth.” Now fince all 
the impenitent a& from the fame unholy felfith temper, and 
are equally deftitute of all holinefs, and fince God here mani- 
felted fach a difapprobation of the unholy obedience and fers 
vices of the wicked; the fuppofition is moft unreafonable, 
that his covenant required nothing more than fuch an external 
unholy obedience, which he thus condemns; and that he even 
sovenanted to reward fuch external unholy obedience. 

Again, the Pharifees and Jews, in general, in the days of 
our Saviour, atime when the Jewifh church had become very 
formal and degenerate, had imbibed this very idea, that God 
tn his covenant or laws, given by Mofes required nothing 
more than a ftri&t external obfervance of all the moral 
and ceremonial laws. When therefore our Saviour mention- 
ed to one of them the requirements of the moral law, he fays, 
*¢ All thefe things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I 
yet 2”? Itfeems, that he verily thought, he had fulfilled the re- 
quireménts of God’s law or covenant, becaufe he had yielded 

an external obedience, and therefore thought he was by cove- 
-nant entitled to God’s favor. Paul alfe {peaking of his old 
Pharifaical religion, Philip. iii. 6. fays, that touching the 
righteoufnefs, which is in thedaw, he was blamelefs, becaufé 
by a ftrict external obedience he had fulfilled the requirements 
of this law, as it was generally underftood by the Jews and 
Pharifees. But what did the Lord Jefus, who is the faithful 
and true witnefS, fay on this fubje&. When ‘one afked him, 
* Matter, which is the great commandment in the law” —Jefus 
faid, “ Thou fhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
foul and mind. This is the firftand great command—The fe- 
cond is like unto it, thou fhalt love thy neighbor as thyfelf— 
Oa thefe two commandments hang all the law and the 
prophets.” 

Fiere the faviour exprefsly declares, that love to God and 
man, or real religion, was required in the law of Mofes, 
which conitituted the requirements of God’s covenant with © 
his ancient church. Is it not ftrange then that after ovr 
Saviour has fo plainly decided the queftion, that any who pro- 
fefs themfelves Chriltians fhould again imbibe the old Phazi- 
faigal fentiment, that this law or covenant required nothing 


(32) 


more than an external obedience, and might be éc 
by impenitent finners. a 

_ Since, upon examination, this Pa i fi the Baptifts, 
_ God.did not require real holinefs of heart, et al 
of his covenant with the . ancient church, is directly contrary” 
to fo many plain reprefentations of the bible, and leads to. 
fo many abfurd confequences, it is certain, that it is falfe 5 
and that real religion was required in God’s covenant with 
that church, as much as,it now,is in the Chriftiamn, = i 

Is not the proof from the various arguments which have 
been adduced, full and unanfiwerable, that the Jewith 
Chriftian church are effentially the fame ; or that Mp tietend 
is but the continuance and extenfion of the tonpat spisitien 
different, difpenfatiorf? 

Probably more has been faid on this fabjee, than | heay be: 
chomp neceflary by fome. . But as the fentiment we have 
ae proving is Rrenuoufly denied by the Baptifts, and their 

ongeft arguments and objections againft Infant-Baptiim — 
are grounded on the idea, that the Abrahamic covenant was 
not the covenant of grace, and tliat the Jewith church was — 
effentially different from the Chriftian ; it was thought expe- 
dient to eftablith thefe points beyond all reafonable difpute. 

“But however clear the proof, which has been exhibited, 
doubtlefs, various objeétions will be urged againft the doc- 
trine we have been illuftrating and etablifuing. We thall | 
proceed therefore to obviate fome of the moft plantible of rrohne 
objeciions, as was propofed under the fecond general head. 


Bae & 


(33) 


aY ? 
Sige i» 


: ™ . 
et - Lad Pt ae ie . 


SERMON I, 


4 r ~ 


BR here it may be well to obferve, that very planfible 


objections may be raifed againft the moft certain 
truths of reafon and revelation ; and that perfons may have 


very full, fatisfactory evidence of a truth, and yet not be able 


clearly to anfwer all the objections and difficulties, which may 
be urged againft it. Since therefore we have fuch direc, full 
and abundant proof, from the facred fcriptures, of the truth 
of our doétrine ; it ought by no means to fhake our belief of 
it, even where there are objections againft it that we could 
not fully anfwer. But it is apprehended, that the difficul- 
ties, which are urged againft the fentiment we have been eftab- 
lithing, may in general be eafily obviated. 


_ Osyection rit. The Abrahamic covenant, of which cir- 


cumcifion was the feal, refpeéted chiefly the land of Canaan 
and temporal bleflings; therefore it was not the covenant 
of grace. ; 

Answer. The covenant of grace, as before fhown, means 
a covenant propofed to unworthy finners, requiring repentance 
and faith, or real religion as its condition ; and promifing 
God’s favor and eternal bleffednefs, or that God will be their 


‘God, to thofe who comply with its requifitions. When there- 


fore a covenant does thus require real religion as its condition, 
and gracioufly promife God’s favor to a compliance, it is 


the covenant of grace; notwithftanding it may promife tem- 


poral bleflings in addition to fpiritual. 

And that the Abrahamic covenant did require faith or real 
religion as its condition, and promife God’s favor, or that he © 
would be a God to thofe who complied with it, has been 


‘fully proved. Confequently it was the covenant of grace. 


Granting therefore, that God did in that covenant promife 
the land of Canaan and other temporal bleffings, in addition 
to fpiritual, it does not afford the leaft evidence, that it was 
not the covenant of grace. We might as well argue, that the 
gofpel difpenfation is not a covenant of grace; becaufe it 
declares, that “ godlinefs. is profitable unto all things, having 


_promife of the life that now is, and of that which is to 


come ;? and becaufe Chrift promifes with refpect to food and 
E 


(34) 


raiment, ‘Seek ye firft the esdoiel of. God, and his 
oufnefs, and all chee things fhall be added unto you.” 

Befides, if the Abrahamic covenant was not the ‘coven: 
of grace, and promifed only. the Jand.of Canaan and tet 
ral bleflings, as many affirm ; ‘how is it, that they, who 
Chrift’s, are Abraham’s feed ae heirs according to the pro 
mife? « Do all Gentile believers inherit the land of Canaan, 
and multiply a numerous pofterity ?’ ‘Certainly they ‘canne 
in any fenfe be heirs of the bleflings of Abraham, ifthe ro 


gant, made with him, was not the covenant of grace, but r 
peéted temporal ‘blediings only. But viewing it as. the scover 

nant of grace, and promifing fpiritual bleflings; wecan rea- 
ily fee, how all believers are-Abraham’s feed, and heirs of 
the f{piritual bleffings, promifed in that-covenant 5 and how by 
this covenant he became the father of allthem that believe. 
Thus the bleffings of Abraham have come on the ‘Gentiles 
through Jefus Chrift. 

Further, what has now been Seidl Gch the weaknefs of 
another fimilar objection. It.is objeéted, that ‘the require. 
ments of God’s covenant with his ancient church were en- 
forced chiefly by promifes of temporal bleffings, and threat- 
‘enings’'of temporal evils. Hence it is ‘concluded,' that this 

covenant did not require real religion and promife e piritual 
bleffings, and fo was not a covenant of grace. z 

In anfwer to this it may be obferved, that under that dif. 
penfation, the knowledge, which mankind ‘had of divine things 
and the eternal world, was but faint and obfcure; and there- 
fore it was much more’ neceflary to addrefs the fenfes ef 
wifible objects, than it is under the clear light of ‘the gofpe 
Confequently their rights and modes of worfhip under — 
difpenfation were more pompous, fhowy, and calculated 
imprets the fenfes. ‘Their compliance with the divine require- 
ments was more enforced with promifes of temporal good, and 
threatenings of temporal evil, by which their external fenfes 
were more immediately addrefled. But this is no evidence, 
that real religion or holy obedience was not required, and that 
no fpiritual bleffings were promifed. For God, if he fees fit, 
may as well enforce a holy obedience by motives of temporal 
good and evil, as by thote of eternal. Yea, . God does. en- 
force obedience in the New-Teflament by fach temporal con- 
fiderations. Thus it is faid, “ Godlinels is profitable unto all 
things, having promife of the life that now is, and of that which 
is to tome.” “ Hethat will love life, and fee good days, 
let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips: that they 


' 
: 
(35) 


: fpeak no-guile.” “ And who is he that will harm yon, if ye 
be followers of that whichis. good” Alfo Rom. xiii. Paul 
3 Chriftians to do good. the confideration, that ia 
this way they would have praife or encouragement of civil ru- 
lers, and to avoid evil from-the confideration, that the ruler 
is “ the minifter of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon 
him that doth evil.” Minifters of the gofpel likewife frequent- 

urge their hearers to.avoid fin from the confideration of its 
evil ruinous tendency in this world-as well as the future ; and 
to embrace relizion, becaufe it will be. for their prevent and 
future good. But this is no evidence, that the obedience re- 
quired in the New-Teftament is not a holy obedience. Con- 
fequently it can be no proof. that a holy obedience was not 
required in God’s covenant with his ancient church, becaufe 


good, and threatenings of temporal evil. 


paffover, and thus become members of that church ; otherwife 
they were to be cut off from national, as well as from church 


ofthat church, altho’ the greater part of them were probably 
deftitute of grace. Therefore it may be concluded, that “ho- 
linefs of heart was not required in the covenant, made with 
the Ifraclisifh church, as a term_of communion ; and fo it 


in which faith or real religion is. required ofall its mem- 
bers. 
‘Ans. Ic will be granted, that God promifed peculiar ble& 
fings temporal and {piritual, to his ancient church, and requi- 
red all the Hebrew nation to’enter into, and keep his covenant, 
obferve his inftitutions, and thus become members of. that 
church upon pain of his difpleafure, and of being cut of 
from all thefe priviléges. But docs not God now require all 
nations, who enjoy the gofpel, to repent, believe, unite with 
his church, and obferve divine ordimances as much as he 
did the Hebrew nation ? And does he not promife {pecial 
bleffings to thofe, who cordially comply with thefe require- 
ments, and denounce dreadful threatenings againft thofe_ who 
negleé&t them ; as really ashe did with refpe& to the Hebrew 
nation ? And are not perfons as criminal for neglefing thefe 
duties now, as the Jews were under that difpesiation? Yea, 
are they not more fo, asthey fin againft greater light? gee 
~ External difobedience in negleéting circumcifion, Bie 


this obedience was enforced by many promiies of. temporal... 
Oxy. 2nd. The Hebrewcharch was national, the whole. 
nation being required to circumcife their children, keep the , 


privileges ; andthe whole nation did thas become members. 


muft be effentially different from. the Chriftian church,, 


*. 


(36) 


other divine commands and inftitutions, was ‘to. 
Jew of the external privileges of that church, anc 
to divine difpleafure, And is it not equally true 
ternal difobedience, in negleéting baptifm, and the other com- 
mands and ordinances of the gofpel, ought now to deprive 
a perfon of the privileges of the Chriftian church ; and does 
it not a@tually expofe him tothe difpleafure of God? And as 
internal difobedience or impenitence of heart deprived the 
Jew of fpiritual and eternal bleflings, fo it does perfons un- 
der the Chriftian difpenfation. ‘All mations therefore ander” 
the gofpel are as much required and obligated to enter into . 

| 


God’s covenant, unite with his church, and obferve all divine 
ordinances, upon penalty of God’s difpleafure, as the Jews 
were, For “ God now commandeth all men every where to 4 
repent,”’ upon pain of his wrath, and every day’s neglect of 
this command expofes to everlafting deftru‘iion. If there-" 
fore the covenant, made with the Hebrew church, did not re- 
quire real religion, becaufe the whole nation were required L 
by a certain penalty immediately to enter into it, as fome ar- 
gue; it will alfo follow, that the gofpel difpenfation does not 
xequire holinefs of heart, becaufe all men are required imme. 
diately to repent and embrace it upon pain of divine difplea- 
fure. The objection implies that God has no right by penal- 
ties to require perfons immediately to repent and embrace 
religion. If he has, as all muft allow who believe the bible, — 
then his requiring all the Hebrew nation immediately 
to enter into his covenant, affords not the leaft evidence, that 
this covenant did not require real holinefS as its condition, 
The truth is, God by weighty promifes;and threatenings 
does now, and always, has required all, wherever he has 
fent his word, immediately to affent to his covenant, unite 
with his church, and obferve all his ordinances. He’ gives 
none any permiflion to negle& his commands a fingle day. 
But he always requires them to do thefe things with the heart, 
or with right affections. ' cpa ae gare 
Accordingly as has been fhown, the requirements of his 
covenant with the Hebrew church were, that they fhould — 
love and ferve God, and keephis commands with all their 
heart and foul ; he infifted much on the heart, and feverely 
yeproved them, when they entered into his coveriant, for lying 
unto him with their tongues, becaufe their hearts were net 
right., And he finally broke off the unbelieving Jews from 
this church “ becaufe of their unbelief.” Lasveg Se 
Thefe confiderations fhow, that God no more required, or 


(37) 

allowed the Jews to enter intehis covenant, become members 
of his church, circumcife their children, and attend upon di- 
“vine ordinances with an impenitent heart, than he now re- 
quires perfons to do thefe things in fuch a manner. He plain- 
ly told his ancient church, that the facrifices of the wicked 
“were an abomination to him ; tothe wicked he faid * What 
haft thou to do, that thou fhouldeft take my covenant in thy 

mouth ;” and he often expreffed his deteftation of hypocrify. 

It was therefore as really wrong for a Jew to circumcife his 
echild, profefs to enter into covenant with God, and become 
a member of his church without real religion, as it would be 
for a perfon now to profefs religion, fit down at the Lord’s 
table, or offer himfelf or child in baptifm with an impenitent 
heart. 

With refpeé& to the other part of the objection, that the 
whole Jewifh nation were members ofthat church, while the 
greater part had no true religion ; it may be anfwered, that 
this is no proof that real religion was not required of them 
as a qualification for memberfhip. Is it any proof, that 
God does not require holinefs of heart as a term of member- 
fhip in the Chriftian church, becau’e many become members, 
and attend upon the peculiar ordinances of the gofpel, while 
deftitute of holinefs; or becaufe the greater part in fome 
‘churches may have no religion? This is looking at the prac- 
tice of the church, inftead of God’s requirements, which 
-tends to lead into error, rather than truth. But if we look 
at God’s requirements, which cannot'be in the leaft invalidated 
by the practice of men; it will be évident, as has been al- 
ready fhown, that real religion was required in his cove- 
‘nant with the Hebrew church, And therefore its conftitu- 
tion was effentially the fame as that of the Chriftian, whe- 
ther all or part of the nation were profefledly members of it, 
or whether there were few or many hypocrites in it. Thefe 
things do not at all alter the divine conftitution and require- 
ments refpecting this church. 

Osj. 3d. The Hebrew children, merely by birth and be- 
ing circumcifed, were brought into covenait with God, and 
‘made members of his church under that difpenfation. For 

“it is faid, Gen. xvii. 14. And the uncircumcifed man-child, © 
whofe fleth of his forefkin is not circumcifed, that foul ‘hall 
be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant.” 
Butas children cannot by birth and baptifm be brought into 
the covenant of grace, and become members of the Chrif- 
tiat-church, in which faith and holinefs are required of all its 


(38 } 


members, it may be eoncluded, that God’s covenant with the 
Hebrew church was not the covenant of grace sand that this 
chuich was effentially different from the Chriftian 
Ans. lf we confider what is meant by covenanting or te ; 
ing im covenant, it willbe evident, that there is oy ee in 
which Hebrew infants were not perfonally brought into cove- 
nant, merely by birth and circumcifion. |The proper mean- 
ing of a covenant, isan agreement between parties, or it is 
when one party makes a conditional propofal to another ; 
and the other party, by aflenting to this propofal, enters into 
the covenant. No one therefore can in this fenfe be in cove- 
nant with another, tnlefs he doesin fome way affent to. the 
propofal or requirements of the covenant. And that the cove- 
nant, which God made with Abraham and the Hebrew 
church in the. wildernefs, did promife certain bleflings on 


certain conditions, and fo was a covenant in the common ule 


of the word, has been already fhowa, Accordingly ‘God ex- 
prefsly told the Ifraelites, that if they would obey his voice 
and keep his covenant, they fhould be his people, and he 
would blefs them, &c. But Hebrew infants, merely by being 
circumcifed at eight days old, neither did nor could give any 
affent to God’s covenant ; for they were wholly ignorant and 
paffive inthe tranfafion. Confequently they could not - 
this fenfe be brought into covenant by circumcifion. 
Should it then be allowed, as the Baptifts fuppofe, ‘shay 
God’s cevenant with Abraham and the Hebrew church ‘was 
not the covenant of grace, but a covenant, promifing tempo- 
ral bleffings on condition of external’ obedience, fill this 
would not remove the difficulty. For an infant by being cir- 
cumcifed at eight days old, could no more give his aflent to 
a covenant, requiring exterual obedience, than he could to 
one requiring internal, or helinefs of heart. There is the 
fame difficulty in his affenting to the one, aste the other. 
Let the covenant therefore with the Hebrew church be the 
covenant of grace, or not; yet as infants could not by their 


circumcifion give affent to it, fo they could not in this fenfe 


be brought into thecovénant. - They muft in fome ‘way af- 
fent to the covenant, before they could be perfonally in cove- 
nant with God in the proper fenfe of the word. - Nor could. 
they without fuch an affent to the covenant be juftly confi- 
dered as proper or complete members of God’s church. For _ 
the covenant, which God made with -Abraham, and with 
his people in the wildernefs was the conftitution of his vifi- 
blechurch. None therefore could be confidered as proper 


orw 3d ira 


(39) 
- aétual members of this church, and entitled to all its privi- 
leges; until they had in fome way given their affent to this. 
“covenant or conftitution, on which it was founded. This 
affent was as neceflary to make them members in this fenfe, 
asthe Freeman’s cath, or a folemn affent to our conftitution, 
is to make a perfom a complete member of our civil commu- 
nity. 

We therefore find frequent accounts in feripture, where the 
whole nation of Ifrael explicitly entered into cavenant with 
God by a public profeffion. And every individual of them, 
when he circumcifed his child, did by this tranfaction profefs 

his affent to God’s covenant, and engage to keep it. They 
did this alfo whenever they offered a facrifice, as all were 
commanded to do frequently. For God fays, Pfalm, ]. 5. 
'“ Gather my faints—thofe that made a covenant with me by 
facrifice ;” which fhows that facrificing was an appointed 
mode of covenanting; and that a perfon did profefledly 
affent to God’s covenant, whenever he offered a facrifice ac- 
cording to divine appointment. And this al] the males were 
commanded to do at leaft three times in a year. For they 
were all to appear before the Lord at the three annual 
feafts, and none were to come empty, or without his offer- 
ing, Deut. xvi. 16. The book of the law or covenant was to 
be read to all the people once in feven years, that they might 
know what it required of them; and probably, that they 
might publicly give their affent to it, as they did in the days 
of Jofiah, Nehemiah, &c. In thefe various ways they were 
centinually profefling their perfonal affent to God’s covenant 
and engagingto keep it. The Hebrew church therefore 
were reprefented as in a marriage relation to the Lord ; which 
fhows, that they did in fome way perfonally affent to God’s 
covenant, and profefs to be his; as the wife engages to be 
her hufband’s in the marriage covenant. When therefore, 
the Hebrews apoftatized from God, they were charged with 
breaking covenant with him. 

Again, the Hebrew children were not merely by their 
birth and circumcifion fo brought into this covenant as to be 
entitled to its promifes and bleflings; even upon the fuppo- 
fition, that it promifed nothing but temporal bleffings as the 
Baptilts fuppofe. For Efau, as well as Jacob, could plead 
thefe conditions, yet he was exprefsly excluded from the blef 
fings of thiscovenant. So could the congregation, who thro’ 
unbelief could not enter Canaan, and inherit the promifed 
bleflings, but wretchedly perifhed in the wildernefs—thof 


(C49,) 


alfo, i Man she wade? of the apoltles: we € I oken 
pi s church and cree of “ its” in at i = €s . 


children intolthis covenant, as to ir oy? -promifes 
Something further was required, either of of their | 
Parkiit, al both, in order " entitle, thera piece 3 | 
rsa i, Payee 
If then the meaning this ebjedion urged. by dhe. : 
is, that Hebrew’children did by cireumcifion enter p 
into covenant with God, and fo become members of his ¢ 
_or that merely birth and cireumc fion did enfure to them | 
presnifesdud blefbnesot thiscovenant, it is evidently averyugres 
miftake. For let the covenant ‘require either intental ‘os x 
ternal o! dience, i it is evident, that an inf it by cing circun 
cifed could not Be any affent toit. Neither had the Hebrew 
po erely by circumcifion, any more , 
ae eat bleflings. than they oa of {piri 
' oerhentrs, the” meaning of the objection, it is 
evidently falfe ut it alfo involves the Baptilts in thea 
cultyas it dae us. For there is the fame difficult 
that an infant could afent to, or perfonally ent Ds 
nant requiring internal obedience, as into one requirin 
nal. And when they fhall fhow, howan infant ca give 
affent to an external, gracelefs covet swe Eee 
be able by means of their difcovery to thow,. how 
in the fame way give their affent to. the ¢ covenant 
But if this is not the meaning of this objection, 
no proof, that God’s covenant with his anci ites a 
not require real holinefs, and was not the ‘covenant. Sa 
Thérefore in perfeét con nfifience with te feniments that 
_ covenant required real _ religion of the Hebrew church, 
that this church was effentially the fame oo ae Chas it 
may beallowed. vad ga ate 0 le phe 


DCIS 


2dly. ‘That the Hebrew infants mi ght i ina cer 
be in God’s covenant, and belong to ie church. . God - in hi 
ae er promifes, might engage or give encouragement — 
to parent ey Would walk be -farehiaa inthe ways of reli- z 
gion and ‘ae faithful in training up their en, for him, © 
that he would blefs their children and be their. God by cir. 
cumcifing their beat. “God: fii ght covenant with parents, © 


to 


¢ , y Se em ~ 
tw - ed ‘ “eit ae 
Te ’ ay 9 


.. ‘ P 
Poe 4 $e 
_ or make fuch promifes concerning their children, and yet the 
- children not be perfonally or a@tively in coyenant. , 
f) Abd therdfare fome paffages, which; if they do not con- 
tain, abfolute promifes, yet certainly afford parents great en- 
_ €ouragement to hope, tharsifithey are faithful, God will blefs 
their children. ‘Thus it is faid, Detit. iv. 40, “Thou thalt 
Keep his commandments, that it may go well with thee, and 


pty children after thee.” it is declared that the feed of the. . 


righteous is bleffed—that they.arethe feed of ‘the bleffed of 
the Lord, and their offspring with them—that Go s right- 


eoufnefs is unto children’s children ; to fuch as keep his com- | 


mandments. God promifes his éhurch, whick pr 
a fpecial reference to the Chriftian church. “1 will pour 
out my fpirit npon thy feed, and my bleflng upon’ thine off- 
‘{pring.” ; xliv. es «© Ad I will give you one heart and 
One way, that they may fear me forever; for the good “of 
‘them /and'their children after them.” Jer. xxxii. 39. The 
Pfalmift alfo fays, that the “ Lord eftablifhed a teftimony, 
and appointed alaw in. Ifrael, which he commanded our 
fathers that they fhould make knownto their chilase : That 

e generation to come might know them, even t hildren 


which fhould be born ; who fhould arifeand declare them to 


their children : That they might fet their hope in Gody and 
not forget his works but keep his commandments.” Train 
upa-child in the way hefhould go; and when he is old he 
will not depart from it.” © “ Thou fhalt. beat him with the 
rod, and fhalt deliver his foul from hell?” ‘Such paflages 
feem to promife fpecial bleffings to the children of the godly, 
and to conneét the good of their children, with the obedience’ 
‘and ara parents.—At leat they afford great en- 
ouragement to parents to be faithful and diligent in their 
Walk with God and in their duty towards their children. The 


promife ,in the Abrahamic covenant that God would be a- 

God to him, and to his feed” after him,may mean, not only 

i parry the’God of his fpiritual feed, but alfo that 
od wo 


God would be the God of his natural feed .by circumcifing 
their hearts, if he would fulfilthe covenant by walking before 


‘God, and being perfe&. The promife may at leaft admit of 


this conftructien. ~ 
Should it be granted then, that the Hebrew children were 


in covenant in this fenfe, that»\God gave promifés ore cour- 


agements to parents, that if they “Were obedient te, fulj» 
e ‘their « 


he would blefs. or renew their children, and thu 

God ; would this afford any evidence, (haggis covenant with 

Iii’ ie Gia “fo.  & 6 “> 
; ‘ 


i > y 
a a 
c. . - 
te ae Ny _?9 
. 


: . 
ee s &, Teer 
° a : = eat aon Pe 


& 


Bed tat ee 
the Hebrew, church was. not the covenant of. race 2 Pe far \ 
from this, that it would-rather afford a fironge p oof’ in_favc r 
of it. An if there were fuch promifes ncouragements 


iven to members of the Ifraelitifh church, refpeéting their ea ile 
ral on condition of their faithfulnels ; when thefe “are till Rill in 
force refpecting the children of | bélievers. For believing , 
Gentiles are engraffed into this good . olive-tree or Jew iN 
church, andgpartake of its root and fatnels, or of i its ¢ 
privileges and promifes, refpedting both _themfelves and. chi we 
dren. » And the children of belicyers are ‘now as capable of be< 
ing.in eovenant in this fenfe, as were the childrea ofthe Jewith 
church. ae 
“The Jewith children might alfo i a fenfe. belo to the 
church. “When ajew circumoifed -h ; child, and thus put 
the feal of God’s covenant ae ity, e .tranfaction denoted 
thathe dedicated his child to God—fet Go ne mark.upon it 
as his peculiar property, and thus laid himfelf under peculia 
Cbligations to bring it upfor God. | “As the child | us 
given up to God, the church, as “being pr efledly Go pe De 
pie and friends, might be obligated. to take care of it ‘for him. 
—-to, {eé, that it was'properly inflruéed and aa up 4 for 
his feryice—to exercue a iuitable watch and care,over it, a 
‘to endeavorit imprefs upon itsymind a fenfe. e imp 
tance of diyine things, and of its, obli: tions: to < 
to ‘God, and.to enter cordially into his . covenant... the | 
child, when arrivedat a fuitable age, was. dient, Or vie. 
cious and nT gigionss or if he manifelted. an imp itent. te em F 


upon his ontinanc com and obeying his Ratutes's it it ight b 2 
the divine conftitution, that he fhould. be ‘cut, fe 
red from all the privileges of God’s church jek ig, ! 
Jewith children might bélong to God in fome fach | fenie 
as the church might be under obligation, te exercife a o God 
liay-care andwatch oyeP them, becaufe publicly, g Spay. Odi 
But ftill thef€ children were not perfonally in covenant \ 
God, or a&tual mémbers of his.church, until they did in fom 3 
way per fonalys aflevit to‘his “covenant. - Ande this th | 
not only by making a public profeflion, as! the. whole ation 
often did, but alfo by offering facrifices, circumcifing | 
childrens and ebferving other divine ordinances 3, which we Te. 
covenant transactions, by which they profefled to affeat to, or 
comply with God’s covenaut. § 
Itmight probably be cx account of their being” ‘thus deat. 
cated to God, hav ing the teal of his €ovenant fet upon” ‘thei 


Rite “hind 


Wore 
el Tee ee es. ~~ 


Sar ae Cas fi. 
ity y> apibareds bdlongin pera church” in® the 
snfe os ides the oe c children were termed 

ne holy feed, Es the ch the covenan tt and that God 
them ere Bes as tag ey had born’to him. 


P And as bel ieving Gentiles are graffed into the fame church 
dpartakers of its privileges, fo their. children may now 


ee the ancient difpenfation... An may. be 
Boas tty the children of believersare ae ne 
| holy. AMO when the dilciples rebuked thofe who 
‘Frocph ede children childten vato Chriltythat he might lay his hae 
“on them, and blefs and pray, for. them ;. Jefus faid, «9 
e thildren, and forbid them not. to come unto” me ;- for 
uch-is the kingdom of Heaven.” Mat. xix. 14... Now 
ofe, who thus ee ght their children to Chrift for his 
blefliag, were doubdtlefs Ahdievera or friends to him ; “otherwife 
“they mater have broushe them to hi fs is bleffing. 
ee children were brought, iff might 
‘lets them, and not to be aE & of any bodily difeate 5 for the 
les would not have rebuked parénts for bringing: chil- 
be healed. And by the kingdom of heaven our De 
ifcourfés generally meant his vifible kingdo: 
ae re he faid, “ Of fuch is the kingdo 
eer ee Se the children of believers oe 
act en to belong to the Chrittian church, as 
* did to -God’s ancient ‘church. 
bear then" be allowed, as objedted,, that_the Jewitt 
“abildsen i in fome fuch fenfe were ia Covenant, and did belong 
to the chlrch ;. aig would be no proof,. that God’s cove- 
. t was, fot the. € covenant. of Face but. 
gould father con‘irm the.evidence, that itwas. ” 
And if this was the cafe, as fome sea feem to. intimate, 
rin the children of believers may. ftandin.this fame. relation 
"to G6d’s covenant, and church a prefent. 
And viewing the ba ogee of children in, this. light. want 


fame relation, to God’s church;. as Jewith,chil- 


- ténd.to rit aitill more fignificant, important. and fo." 
“kr nntr: ion.” Whea a parent: dedicates his children in 
« this ordinance; it is azoken of his faith, or affent to God's 


¥ 


‘covenant, and he thus réneWs covenant with God, and re- 
. y_ obligates eer’ to walk with God in all the @iities 
ion, as much as‘wheén he fics down atthe Lord’s table: 

ie alfo in this ordinance,profeiles to give up, his “childrén. to 
* God, and binds bimfelf to bring them Ary him., THe to- 


. i ‘*Eae ix. a f Ads ili. 25. Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. 


- 
- 


3 ’ 2 ny ; i 
: (4) “ot i 1 hn 


‘ken of God’s covenant wld put ih may denote, 
that'they are given up to God as his i peculiar manner 
and’ that therefore the’church Rade Ak to fee, : 
‘have a chriftian education and aré-brou 
and admonition ofthe Lord, and to take pe = 
them for God, as. being “his peculiar property." nd ‘wer 
parents and the church faithful in inftruéting, re ie and 
watching over fuch children, and-in imprefiing’ with @ 
fenfe of their obligations to love and ferve God and <2vote them- 
felves to him, it would have a peculiar teridency to refttain, 
them from vice, ferioufly affeé their mids, and infiiene : 
then to engage in religion.” Butit is to! be lamen ty 
thofe ‘churches and individuals, who pradife’ Gre 
are fo negligent of ‘their duty towards ‘their 
that there are other Chriftians, who havefo tar de mm 
the original conftitution of God’s church, that they’ even den} ] 
it to-be their ‘duty to give up their'children to od "by patti ng 
the tokenof his covenant’ upon thém, andy wy Bee bligate 
themfelves to bring them up for God. mo ey a 

Oxsj. 4. Canaan wasa type Seaaen! Oh hetted 6 rdt~ ” 
ances and ceremonies’ of ‘the ancient ‘chur were eae’ al, 
anelpointed to Chrift and gofpel truths. | dates rr ra 
be concluded, that this church wasii 
‘was a type of the Chriftian church, bat bi snore ral ve 
fible church of Chrift. ~~» ° 

Avs. The fcripture’no where’ callé the "Hl ew ‘cht 
type of the Chriftian Or gives any hint, that it was" a 
im oppofition to a real church. “Itis efs true, that mafly © 
of the ordinances'and inftitutions of the Hebrew cHurch wer 
typical, and pointed to’ gofpel’ tr; ae vs ‘to: t? rho cha a 
church muftbe merély typical, a A sora 
becaufe it was taught ‘golpel” ernehs by” snd wea 
as as abfurd as it would be toa rgue, that! oa S. 
taught a truth by metaphors ie parables, the . 
felf muft bea mere metaphor, and not a real” dat Fe pte 4 
things refpeding tHe Hebrewchurch, a fan ings o an B 
‘it, were doubtlef$ défigned for our ett rudion, bier 
or exemplify ( ‘God’s dealings with Chrift Chriftians.~ cco! 
the'declaration “of'the apoltle, ita 


them inthe’ wildernefs, All thefe happene 
enfamples ; ‘and they are written for our ‘admnith oe 
their journey from Egypt thro’ i Me 

and sleeps befel thea ALY tle way,’ ae | it nay ee 


, * 


; 

id fs | 

Sa ee ts) 

rife ble: the j mey F Cian, tno” the “Wwildetnet df 


a lo conclude, thatthe Hebrew was a typical and not a real 

paurch, becaufe their condua&, and God’s, treatment of 

them, were defigned for our infruGion, and to illuftrate his 

Jeal ings with Chriftians? Is not this an argument in. favour 

, *of, rather than againf their being. a real church? Might. we 
g oti aswel tontlude, that Noah and Lot weremot real Chrif- 


hemay tefemble, or be illuftrative of the believer’s falva- 
vine wrath ? ae therefore perfons. affert, that 
Was not 


it, and eflentially different from the Chrif 


_4asdire@ly contrary to"the cleareft evidence from thevicriptures, 
“ oer othe Chriftian and) Hebrew. church 
are the f 


‘the w church in the wildetnefs was, that 


ple lee:  promifed or profeffedto,keep this covenant 
Sted -en dba a, without fenfe or meaning tofay, 


nfe or meaning can there 


Fa ol sa ir 
‘ i faying, , mtd avouched God typically tobe their God} 


“\promifes as thefe, made by the. Hebrew church, were. cove- 


Es paeae ae chureh profefS more than this 2 And were not. 
the members of that church, who were at heart what they 
eed, een or ex fo. falvation, as any now are? If 
ty 


w 4 mare ais, SHE te ».% 7 8h 


hr is od and ap lied by the apofile, Heb. viii. 8, 9, 12," 
e555, 13,.is As ‘conclufive ‘proof that the gofpel church issmatefi- 
ae 


Be tially different fol this new and better cove- 
‘words ofithe apo apoitie,»upon which this objection is 
aes, - “ Por findiag fault with) them, he faith, 


et 


aes : 
this world, to the heavenly Canaan. But have we any reae ~ 


aig ufe there dre many things in Noah’sifalvation © 
the ark from the deluge, and in‘Lot’s efcape from Sodom, ~ 


— e real church of Chrift, but a “ 
. i eo hah eet er which they have no proof, and which — 


love Himwith all their’ hedrt-and foul, and the 


tik 2 op, ean typically, or entering 


metypically . with all their*heart,-and 
Spa Hoe all their foul ? li fuck 


na ting typically, ‘or enteringinto only a typical covenant, = 
‘Ugehere can we dany veahicbventing, er covenanting: Does | 


a lor fenfe can there bei in calling ita bs sme 
© 
 OBy. 5 Ttis afferted” by fome, that the ‘paflage of: Jer f 


the Hebrew ; andthat the Abrahamic tove. - 
r a grace, upon upon whieh: the Chriftian church is now fout-_ 


shold de taye cOme—whert I mulepe: anew covenant-with - 


nce the ‘condition of the covenant, God, , 


F kn 


' the houfé of Ifrael, and with thé houfe of 
* ding to the covenant that I made with 


" the houfe of Ifrael after thofe days ;°I will put ig lav inte 


‘grace, on which the Chriftian chur: ilt, ba tee 


(46) . . 


—— < a 


I took them by the hand.to lead th€m out of ‘Egypt 3 3b 
they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them 
faith the Lord, For this is the covenant that Iwill make wi 


their mind, and write them in their’ hearts: foe 
them a God, and they fhall be to me a people.” a) they 
fhall not teach every man his neighbot—and brothers fa a 
Know the Lord ; for all fhall know me from the le 
greateft.” And in’ that he faith “A new ‘covenant, he" > a 
made the firkt old.” “This new covenant it‘is fuppofed means 
the covenant of grace, on which the Chriftian ch-is built 4 
therefore it is concluded, that the Hebr w Beas ch ps 
be founded on this.covenant, aud fo m BR "be mae 
ferent from the Chriftian.. ies. . 
r_ In anfwer to this objeétion.it may Ase pele 

rf, Granting this new covena 


bits at oF 


be eqw in this fenfe, that it was ie ‘revealed, to nee 
before the eftablifhment of the Chriftian church 2 If fo, Pee | 
all, who lived before this’ period, fuch as Enceh, Noah, | 
ham, Mofes, &c. were loft ; for non ¢, can be ner but b ay 
cempliance with the covenant of ee oe who that te 
lieve the fcriptures, can fuppofe thee 3 - s} the le ‘exe 
prefsly declares that the gofpel, whieh: cefthaly” tontains 
covenant of graces was preached.unto Abraham, and» ‘that @ 
mene to him was.“ of faith, that it might. be by. piyee 
ind this clearly proves, that the Abrahamic covenant, on, 
which the Hebrew church was founded, was. the. 6ovenan of 
ce. And this is further evident fod the Pe agree hee | ‘ 


“that God made the fame promife” to bra bam. _ and. ee re 


brew church, which he makes in this new 0 t. 
mifed Abraham to. be his God ; and to si pees 

he fays, Exod. vi. 7, I will take you to me for. pee a 
i will be to’you a’ God.” 

. So in this new covenant he fays “I willbe Biheet a ea, 
and they. fhall be to'mea people.” tis’ evident then. TO; 
thefe confidefations, that the covenant of grac ty] bere 
called new, cannot’ mein, that it passe cade e@ to. Man.” 
kind before the Chriftian’ difpenfati Cc ently . aff 
furds'no,proo¥, that the Abrahaniie church, which 
circumcifion, was not built'on the covenant ofgrace, or was 
materially different from the Chriftian hutch 


“= 


‘oh Ae 4 
| as » % a J L 
ie ¥ al { 47 } a * 
e- : —_—_—_— ¢ e - 
* Ze 7 _ Iemay benoticed, Hes the apoftle in this paflage 
gives clear evidence, that he. di not mean the Abrahamic 


i ive r 4 a 7) e % ; x A 
'» This fhows, that by what is here called the" old eae & 


Naadl 
a 
? 


it is no more of promife: but God gave ‘it to Abraham by 
ate elf therefore it fhould be allowed, that: what is 


ny 


fount Sinai, was not the covenant of grace; yet this would 


Les Rill it might be fhown, were it neceflary, that eyeil the 
Mofaic difpenfation or Sinai covenant, did’contain the coye- 
nant of grace; obicurely revealed by types and emblems 
"which pointed to Chrift, and directed the faith of the Ifraelites 
to him.for falvation. Thus the numerous factifices, enjoined. 
‘in that difpenfation, pointed direétly to the atonement or fa- 


/Y without fhedding of blood there was no remiffion. Thei 
* ceremonial cleanfings were to teach them their need of itivarll 
“purity oranew heart. Thusit was the gofpel or covenant 
of grace under types and fhadows. But, . “re 
rrry 4 be enquired, ,Why the covenant of grace, under 
‘thé Chriltian difpenfation is called new, if itis effentially the 
Mine covenant, which was revealed to Abraham, and upon 
. whi h the Hebrew chureh was built? eg. SP ri. 
"eggs To this enqii it may be anfwered, that the difpen- 
. Yation of the covenant of grace under the gofpel is new and 


4 ved 


. and fhadows, that pointed to Chrift aud gofpel ‘truths. But 


ere termed. the ‘old’ covenant, made with the Ifraelites” at 


be no, proof, that the Abrahamic covenant was mot, fincé as. 
~ has been fhown, thefe two covenants..were entirely diftinct. 


-etifice of Chrift, taught them their need ofhis blood, and that » 


“different from the former difpenfations ig this fenfe.;_ that FY 


mF 


‘itis a. difpenfationattended pes more lig 
. in which the great truths of religion are 


the divine law on the heart. 


litttle idea of tl ir native depravity, and of t 


_ clares by his prophet in the words, 


“é iba in, the hay o of his ey 


vealed before. ” For it was expref enjoined by God upon 


4 covenant Of grace, and white did bataaliiage aly teak at 


, and there are mere copious € ca 


the truths of religion: were but bf rl re 
nderftood.. The molt of the Ih aelites appe 


religion, or of what God required of them in 
Pies sas the whole. out to enter into God at 
and profefs religion, while few of em al 4 
piety. Of es being deftitute “of “eee 

not in God’s covenant,” into which they profeffec 
but openly apoftatizéd and fell into” wickednefs « 
But: faulting them for their breaking. bis cveany 


that it fhould not be fo under the new ese Nt 
difpenfation which was coming ; but that 
aws into their mind, and write. them: in 
to them a God, and that all fhould — 
leaf to the greatelt. Thus. tb aoe 
cy concerning the gofpel difpenfation, fhowi 
be new and different in many refpeéts from the Jew 
it would be more fpiritual, and ae law wi 
ng 


fenfe, that the Bestisbe of ot Sat Sao 
er. 2 
None: ‘can with truth affirm, that tices ei wes agied ree 


his ancient church. For the dum of the fecond table of eu 
moral law, given by Mofes, as explained by our Saviour, was. 
«Thou fhalt love thy neigbour as thyfelf” This, comman 
thén, Wh £ fhall love one another”? was | this fenfe, 
that it was now. more clearly and plainly enjoin Fs fen. 
So the covenant of grace under the pee may | evant a 
new and better covenant ; becaule it isa much m 
fall difpenfation ‘of the great, | pe f Ego de 
tended with more fpirituality. 
nies, which were blended with Bi ‘Motate didpent ae 


(49) 


ruths of the gofpel, did indeed wax old, and vanith away be- 
fore the clearer light of the Chriftian difpenfation. But fill 
‘itis no proof, thatthe Hebrew church was not the fame as 
the Chriftian, becaufe it was divine truth in a more obfcure 
| manner, as has been already fhowns As well might we con- 
clude, that a man is not the fame perfon, he was when a 
child ; becaufe he is now governed and inftruétedsina difu 
| ferent manner from what he then was. REP? dul ME 
~~ Osy. 6. The Abrahamic covenant cannot be the coves 
mant of grace ; becaufe God fays of it, Gen. xvii. 14. My 
covenant fhall be in’ your flefh.”” But the covenant of grace, 
itis concluded, cannot be in the flefh. | A 
Ans. All allow, that the Abrahamic covenant promifed 
the land of Canaan, and various other bleffings. But none 
can rationally fuppofe that the.land of Canaan, and thefe other 
- bleffings were put into the flefh of a child, when he was cir- 
_cumcifed ; and that the covenant was thus literally in their 
_ficth ? This would be quite as abfurd as to fuppofe with the 
_Papifts, that we literally eat the flefh or body of Chrift, 
_ when partaking of the Lord’s fupper ; becaufe he faid in the 
| inftitution, «Take, eat, this is my body.” Butif the cove- 
nant could not be literally in their flefh, what can be the 
meaning of the paflage? Itis clearly explained in but the 
| fecond preceding verfe. “Ye fhall circumcife the fleth of 
your foreskin, and it /hall be the token of the covenant betwixt 
me and you.” Here we are taught that circumcifion is the 
_ token of the covenant. When therefore it is faid, that the 
covenant “fhali bein your flefh” it evidently means that 
| circumcifion the token of the covenant fhould be in their fleth. | 
And fince the paffage is thus. clearly explained in a prece- 
_ ding verfe, it is frange that any could ever think of under- 
_ Randing it literally, or could imagine, that it afforded any 
_ evidence, that the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant 
_ofgrace, How can it be any evidence, that this was not the 
_covenant of grace, becaufe the token of it was in the fleth? 
_ The Baptifts themfelves fuppofe, that baptifm is a token of 
faith ; and thus itis a token of the covenant of grace, or of 
anaflent to it. Baptifm then is now a token of God’s covee 
nant on the flefh, as circumcifion was atoken of it in the flefh. 
| No reafon therefcre can be given, why the one may not be 
a token of the covenant of grace, as well as the other. 
>. Bar it is objected by fome of the baptifts, that the cove- 
“nant of grace is {omething ‘internal or-fpiritual, and therefore 
there Can be no external roken of it. 


G 


» 
I 
D 


i 


i 
i 


(se) 


In anfiwer to this it may be ob apt a 
2 covenantis Meant fome token or 
give our alfent to it. And furel 
or fign, which miay be a vifible toke 
to the covenant tace. And no 
or external token of this covenant. 
felves mutt allow, that a p n 
vifible figns or tokens of faith or pra 
of fomnething internal and {piritua 
ken of faith is in fa& a token of ana 
grace. Therefore the objectién, that th 
posh of the covenant of grace, is evi 
Hon. 
What has been faid alfo fhows the z 
Abrahamic coverant a feibly cover 
tills do ; becaufe circumeifion the tok 
We imhy with juft as much propric all 
grace under the Chriftian difpent! ion & fief 
canfe baptifm is new atoken ex the 2 
well call any covenant, a wai 
of it is impredied upon wax. 
Oss. 7th. Real religion was at’ 
venant with his aitcient church or as. 
being his church or people, as it is ¢ 
becaufe God called them his pa 
Were very degenerate and corrupt, put 
them had any real religion. Bat it is “tht 
could not confiitently do this, had real holinefs t pea require 
im the covenant or conftitution eee ah See 
Avxs. The Lord Jefus in his epiftles to ven churches 
OF Alia, addrelfes them as his charches, although fome ol 
Phiten “wiles Very corrupt, and tolerated delat: oi rnicaticr 
and other profs vices. When he addrefedt the mo! ce c 
them, and reproved and threatened ; 
his churches as muck as he did the’ the 
he addreffed the church of Sardis as of Vie church, 
he told them, that they had 2 name to live, But were 
and that there were but few of them, who Were fct d 
reprefeniing, that they were generally aa of re 
gion or fpiritual life. The Laodicean church is reprefe 
itil more degenerate—as being {piritually wi 
miferable, blind and naked, which muft certainly rply 
they Were generally i ina Rate oF fp. Yet Key’ were aK 
fed as bene a chinch of Claik, as n.udi Ss any “bey 


¥ 


(382) 
even. We might therefore as well argue from this, that 
seal religion is not now required by Chiilt, as a term of mem- 
erthip in his church ; as we can, that it was not required in 
$0d’s ancient church, becaufe God called them his people, 
zen generally corrupt. ~Chrift might confiitently addrefs 
shefe churches as bzing sis, although corrupt ; becau they 
grofefied to be dis. So the Jews might confiltently be cal- 
2c Sot saa eh flea of reli to be i ale 
a 


wretchedly deftroyed. S$ o Chri® warned and Batt d hi 
chu ches a Sie ed pet Seat rats 
for sis ig years. Baca eer § ia fe = 
corry ie he Sens gor 


ae Pe ci in many HOt was very 
fimil ert ih i soeee church, and fo it corro- 
orates p Sree widence, that they are effentially the fame. 


(52) 


SERMON II. 


AVING, as it is apprehended, fully proved, that th f 
Jewifh and Chriftian church is the fame, and alfo ob 4 
vated the molt weighty and plaufible objections ; it is ‘pro~ a 
pofe ; 
III. ‘To make application ‘of the fubject id proof of the 
duty of infant-baptifm. ya 
rft.~ It is abundantly evident from our fubject, that the 
Jewifh and Chriftian curch is the fame, and that believing 
Gentiles are graffed into the fame church, or: olive-tree, from 
which the unbelieving Jews were broken off. It is alfo unde- 
niably manifeft, that the Abrahamic covenant was a covenant 
of grace, and that circumcifion, the token of this covenant, — 
was a feal or token of the faith of believers. It is further evi- 
dent, that all the members of God’s ancient chutch were di- 
rected to circumcife their chidren and houfeholds, and thus to” 
apply this token of the covenant of grace and feal of their 
faith to their children, as well as to des mfelves- If A the sted y 
the Chriftian church is the fame with God’s ancient church — 
—is but the continuation of that church undera new dilpen- f 
fation ; ought not the members of it nowto apply the feal of 
their faith, or the token of the covenant of grace to their | 
children, as the members of God’s ancient church were direc- 
ted to do; unlefs there is fome command or direétion to the 
contrary ?: Have they any warrant to negle& this duty, which © 
God has once enjoined upon his chureh without fome direc- 
‘tion or intimation from him? But no one can pretend, thatany 
fuch command or intimation can be found inthe bible, directing 
the members of God’s church not to apply the token of his 
covenant, or feal’oftheir faith to their children, as he has:once 
commanded them. What right then have they to neglect 
this duty, which has been once enjoined, and never revoked ?. 
A command once given by God, ftands in full force, until 
revoked. Thus God commanded the ancient church to keep 
one day, in feven, as a holy. fabbath. And as he has never 
revoked this;command, it is as binding wpon/us, as it was up- 
‘on them. Altho’ the day is changed fram: the feventh to the 
firft, ftill this does not difannul the command of keeping “one 


a) 


: “feventh part of time holy. So God alfo commanded Ais an- 


eient church to put the token of his covenant, or of their 
‘ame upon their children, as well as upon themfelves, and 
has never revoked this command. Therefore the command 
is as binding upon us, asit was upon them. Altho’ this to- 
+ken or fealis changed from circumcifion to baptifm, ftill it no 
more difannuls the command to put it &pon infants ; than 


the change of the fabbath from the feventh to the firft day, 


difannuls the command to keep one day in feven as a holy 
faboaian, a 8 | ae a 
Had cireumcifion continued to be the feal or token of the 
faith of believers in the Chriftian church, as it was in the 
Jewifh, and had the command to the apoftles been, “ Go, 
teach all nations, ircumcifing them in the name of the fa- 
ther, &c.” no perfon could ever have fufpedted, that this 
« feal of the 1ighteoufnefs of faith” was not to be applied to the 
children of believers or profeffors,asit ufed to be before the 
coming of Chritt. If therefore it can be fhown, that there is 
now and ordinance in God’s church under the Chriftian dif- 
-penfation, which inits defign andimport anfwers to circum- 
cifion; theevidence will be very ftrong and conclufive, that it 


 duglit to be applied to children, as circumcifion was ; unlefs 
there is fome diretion tothe contrary. But does not baptifm 


in its import and defign evidently anfwer to circumcifion in 
“God's ancient church, as has been already fhown. | 
ift. Circumcifion wasa token of the covenant of grace 
between God, and thofe who applied it to themfelves or 
‘children, and was a fealor token of their faith, or of their 
-aflent to this covenant. So baptifm is nowa feal or token of 
the faith of believers, and thus it is a token of the covenant of 


+ grace, of which faith is the condition. It is therefore a to- 


ken of the covenant between God, and thofe who apply it to 


» themfelyes or children, juft as circumcifion was in God’s an- 
‘elent church. ; 

-andly. ' As circumcilion was a feal or token of faith and of 

the covenant cf grace, no. one without faith could have any 


right to it, either for himfelf or children. Accordingly “ A- 


- ‘braham received the fign of circumcifion, a feal of the right: 


eoufnels of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcifed ;” 
fhowing, he firft believed, and then circumcifed himfelf and 
houfehold in token of his faith ; and fo that faith was the con- 
‘dition of circumcifion. When therefore any heathen wifhed to 
‘be admitted to the Jewifh church or ordinances, he firft pro- 


(54) 


fefled his‘faith in the God of Lfrael, before he’ o! his family 2 
were circumcifed. © , nefore bel ot 


So Philip told the Eunuch, that he mi rk be ‘bap 
he believed with all his heart ; which fhe it faith “* 
condition of baptifm, as it was of cireumcifion, | nd th 
perfons therefore have a right to ba rif for ther 
children, until they fir profefs their v db He * 
3dly. _Circumcifion’denoted the natural corruption f n 
kind, and the neceflity of 2 renovation ef ig 2 


ftrikingly reprefents our natural pollution, and Ff being 
renewed or cleanfed by the wafhing of re eration. — oie 

qthly. Circumcifion might point to fhe Mode at Chri if 
and be defigned to lead the Hebrew church to feel the ideale % 
fity of the fhedding of blood for the remiffion of fin. = 

Sa baptifm is now calculated to imprefs us with a of 4% 
the neceffity of being fprinkled with the blood of “fie ee- 
mer, that blood of fprinkling, which cleanfeth from ‘all fin, 
as the only ground of pardon an juftification, 

Finally, as circumcifion was the door of admiffion into 
Chrift’s ancient church in the fenfe, that no oné could become’ 
a member of it, and attended upon its ord nances, unlefs cir- | 
cumcifed : fo now no perfon can rightfully become a mem- 
ber of Chrift’s church, or partake of the Lord’s Supper, unlefs h} 
baptized. OCR Mayet writin Segue ey ae 

‘a is abundantly evident from thle eats ions, that the — 


meaning and defign of cireumcifion and baptifm are effential- 
ly the fan ; and that baptifm’ anfwers page “ends ia it 4 
Chriftian church, as circumcifion did in the ewifh. f 
fore baptifm in its import and defign does thus anfwer to — 
circumcifion—is now the token of the faith of believers, and © 


of the covenant of grace, as Pape Ro the Jewifh” 
difpenfation ; then it is certain, that’ baptifm does now ae { 
inftead of circumcifion. . Confequently it ou ht to i applied 
to children of believers or profeflurs, as cireume on ‘was; 
fmee God has given no command or direétion to the con- 
trary. Pg tet igh Avon a ote aa 
Furiher, in that covenant, which God ‘made with Abra- 
hara, and which cop{tituted him the father of all tha _bel Ve, 
God fays to him Gen. xvii. 9, and 10. “Thou fthalt keep my © 
covenant therefore, thou, and thy feed after thee, in their gen- 
crations. This is my covenant which ye fhall keep between — 


me and you, and thy feed after thee ; every man-child am 
you fhall be) circumcifed.” Here is a plain command. 
thetded OF A Sah fj hi . reir gener: ain oS 
thefeed of Abraham after him in their generations fhe 


(55) 

SOvetiant with God by applying the token of God’s covenant 
ad the feal of their faith to their natural children. But by 
the feed here in this covenant is meant more efpecially his 
piritual feed. For the apoltle fays, “ If ye be Chrift’s thea 
re ye Abraham’s feed and heirs according to the promile,” 
referring to the promife in this covenant that God would be a 
God to him and his feed after him. Since therefore believers 
are the feed of Abraham, refpeGted in this covenant, it is evi- 
dent that the command, “ Thou fhalt keep my covenant 
therefore, thou and thy feed after thee in their generations,” 
miuft be binding upon he. And fince, as has been fhown, 
baptifm doesanfwer to circumcifion, asa token of the fare | 
covenant of grace, and has come in its ftead, are not believers, 
the true feed of Abraham, as much commanded to keep God’s 
covenant by applying the token of it to their children, as hé 
was? For the command was as exprefs to his feed after his in 
their senergrions, as it was tohim. Accordingly when any 
ef the heathen joined themfelves to God's ancient church, and 
thus profefledly became the feed of Abraham, they obferved 
this command by circumcifing their children. 

_ As there not therefore a plain command, which has never 
been revoked, that believers, or thofe who enter into God’s co- 
venant, and profefs to be the feed of Abraham, fhould apply 
the token of their faith and of this covenant to their children ? 
Do not thofe then, who negle& this command, neglect a 
plain command of God ? ,Had circumcifion continued to be 
the feal of the faith of believers in the Chriftian church, as it 
was ia the Jewith ; all muft allow, that it ought to be applied 
to children, as it ufed to be. Since therefore baptifm does 
now anfwer to circumcifion, or fiand inflead of it, is it net 2s 
eertain, thatit ought to be applied to children ; as tho’ cir- 
eumci‘ion had ftill-continued to be the feal of the believer’s 
faith? In this view of the fubjeé is not the proof of the duty 
of infant-baptifm from circumcifion very clear and conelu- 
five? Yea, is it not unanfwerable, unlefs it can be fhown, ci- 
ther that the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant of 
grace—That the Jewith church was not effentially the fame 
as the Chriftian, and that believing Gentiles are not the feed 
of Abraham and were not graffed into the fame church or 
olive-tree, from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off ; 
or ee that baptifm is not the feal or token of the believer’s 
faith, and of the covenant of grace, as circumcifion was; or 
elfe that God has directed his church not to apply the feal of 
their faith to their children, as he once commanded them ? 


(56) 


Unlefs one of thefe things. can be fhown, spray Fideare in. 
vor of infant-baptifm appears conan ver 
But that no one can do either of thefe, it is appre 
be evident to every candid mind, who attentivel: 
what has been fuggefted from the fcriptures on a . 
And would our Baptifts but view the eg 
and candor, and confider, that to invalidate t 


raffed into the fame church, from. er Gane wot 
Jews were broken off, and that : bane is not, th 


_ * This proof of infant-baotifm, from the Abrahamic covenant, 7 Oa 
rive additional evidence from the apoftle’s allegory, Gal. ive | 29. 
he confiders Abraham’s two wives and their fons, as an alle: re] ‘itera ; 
tion of the Abrahamic and Mofaic covenants. Which hinges fays he,» 
“* ave an allegory 5 for thefe are the two covenants 5” the one from Mount 
Sinai, which is Agar or Hagar, Verfezq. By the two covenants muft 
be meant the Abrahamic and Sinai or Mofaic covenants, of which the — 
apoftle had been, particularly, difcourfing in the peectiaeveee et a ’ 
epiftle. f } 

As Sarah was firft wife to Abraham ; fo the. Alsuharales covenant was 
firtt the conftitution or bafis of God’s ancient ‘vifible church. And as Ha-_ 
gar afterwards became his wife with Sarah ; ’ fo the Sinai or Mofaic covenant 
was afterwards fuperadded to the Abrahamic)’ as the conftitutionof this 
church, But after a while, Hagar and her. fon were caft out. So a the 
death of Chrift, the Mofaic difpenfation was abolifhed. and the wu 
Jews, who clung to this, and rejeGted the gofpel, were caft out, - 
bondmaid and her fon—They were, thro” “unbelief, broken off 
olive-tre@, or the church ‘of God.——And as’ Sarah remnaiged alone: | " 
of ABraham, after the expulfion of Hagar; fo, after the abolition of the 
Moiaic difpenfation, the covenant or. promite made. with Abraham became 
again the only conftitution or foundation of God’s vifible church. 

There is, therefore, ‘according to this allegory, the fame-evidence, that — 
che Abrahamic covenant remained the foundation of the Chriftien church, — 
after the abolition of the Mofaic difpenfation ; as that Sarah continued — 
Abraham's wife, after that Hagar was caft out.—-Thus ‘believing Gentiles, 
ave graffed into the fame olive-tree, from which the unbelieving Jews” were 
broken off, partake of the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree, or enjoy the — 
bieffings of Abraham. Therefore the apoftle fays, ‘If ye be Chrift’s 5 si 
then are ye Abrahams feed, and heirs according to the promife ;”” And.be j 
calls Abraham the father of all, who believe. 

Since cherefere the Marshaait covenant continues now to be the extere 
nal conftitution er foundation of the Chriftian church, and believers ave — 
now Abraham's feed ; ought they not to apply the telken of this covenant 
of grace, or the feal of the rightcoufuels of faith to their children ? ? Far the. 


(37) 
__.The view, which has now been taken of our fubjed, 
carly. how, sip teat: et ecutive many of the 
plaufible objections and arguments are, which are urged 


fg infant-baptifim.¢ “9 

_ Oxjzction 1ft. ‘There isno exprefs command for infant- 
daptiim in the New-Teftament ; and therefore it ought not 
Ripe erty ai ade itll ot Pa ad ie Ta 
- ANSWER. — God has exprefsly commanded thofe; who enter 


‘into covenant with him, and thus become- members of his 

church, to apply the token of this covenant, and of their faith 
_ totheir children, and has never revoked this command. This 
- command of God therefore ftands in full force, confirmed by 
the a re of his ancient church for feveral thoufand years. 
 Confequently it was unneceflary for him to repeat this cor- 
mand to his church in the New-Teftament. *As the apoftles 
_ had been educated in the Jewith church—had always feen the 
- members of this church put the token of the covenant and of 
_ their faith upon their children, and had alfo feen this token 
applied to the children of the Heathen, who proteffed their 
_ faith in God, and joined his church ; fo they would natural- 
_ ly fappofe, that the feal of the faith of believers was ftill to be - 
applic to their children.] There was therefore no need of 
commanding them anew to apply the feal of the covenant to 
the children of believers. For they would have had no idea 
of omitting it without fome direétion not to apply it.” Thus 
when the apoftles were commanded to “ Go and teach all 
: nations, baptizing them,” &c. they would naturally apply the 
feal ci the righteoufnefs of faith, to the children of believers, 
: 


commani ‘Is, “Thou halt keep my covenant, thou, and thy feed after 


thee ;” and all real believers are ina eculjar manner the feed of Abraham: 
If then, baptifm is now the feal or token of this gracious covenant ;_ it ap- 
pears, bie! fra ehriftians are as much obligated to apply it to their chil. 
éren ; as the Ifraclites were to circumcife their’ss—How. can this argument 
be evaded, unlefs it can be fhewn, eicher that the Abrahamic covenant is 
difannulle andis not the foundation of the Chriftian chuzch; or, that the 
command to apply the token of the covenant to children is revoked ? But nei- 
ther of thefe can be proved fromthe word of God. 
 Againe We aretavght, Rom. xi. that witen the Jewith nation fhall be 
converted to Chriftianity, they will be again graffed “into their owa oliye- 
tree,”’ or be received into the fame church, from which they were broken 
off, and then be reftored to their’ ancient covenant relationto God. But 
will they not then apply the fea) or token of God’s covenant to their children, 
as their church always did, from its Grft inflitution in the family of Abra- 
ham—aud efpecially fince the covenant wich their father Agr tham {till ce- 
tains the conititution of this church, into which they will be received. See 
ap eatatidan of the Scripture allegory of Sarah and Hagar by Rey, Aaron 
POMC el cok ayes? 


H 
: 


(58) 
as well as t6'th ats } and fo 
and chi dren, | mle nny ‘had fome 0é 
In this fee it may be clearly way, ' 
to baptize infants was toa ey 
on thoi who ps Web 
fome feripture, W direas dae e 
faith fhall not be hed to his | le 
Goa’s ancient ch Read 
a : command, : ate 
para enjoins this Hea his’ ‘chu 

therefore lies on them to fhéw, © 
command, or "age a contrary ¢ 
covenant of grace, or the to 1 6} 
changed poy circumcifion,, to bapt aes 

e comma yit to ehila ren ’ 
fabbath, ead eT he fi ; 
the command wo keep oné ‘een ba rt 
we can fee no more need fg ‘pr 
baptitm, thaa for cheng he 
fabbath. ‘therefore 
infant. faye isa proof, ahi toy - 
then we ought pee to keep the firl 
time, fince there Is no exprelS to 
females to, be admixted to the Lore 
precept or example for it in the 
many other duties, w nich may be 
ture, and which many, that tdeny in 
duties, mutt be given up 3 ifthe 
isa fufficient ates againit a_ practi 
clearly thow that the want of an exp 
baptifma is no pracf again it. ot 
evidence for a duty, which is not ex 

Os}. 2d, ‘There is ao account © 
ulm in the fcriptures, 

Ans. Should it be granted, bie =e sa 
would be no proof, that infant-baptifm owas 
When God ceafed from the work of the creatio 
thefabbath by bleffing and fan@ifying the | 
there is no account of its being obferved b 
it even mentioned in the fcriptures after its it 
time of Mofes, which was about 2,5c0 year 
proof that the fabbath was never obferved « 
pe iod 5 and can we fuppoie, that Enoch, | 
and the oiler picus patriarchs lived m the entWe) 


ps 


date, Bre 


; (59,3. 


yee mand, of God ;, merely becaufe we hay¢ no acconnt. of 
“Their obferving the fabbath ? There isno account, that a fin- 
eee ofthe net Theflalonica was ever baptized ; 
‘But is this any proof, that they Were all unbaptized ? Or is it 
‘any proof, that no Ifraelites were citcumcifed’from the days 
of Jofhua till the birth of John'the Baptilt; becaufe we have nv 
- aecount of the circumcifion of any during that period > “Thete 
‘confiderations fhow, that, fupgofing there was no- account or 
the baptifm of any children or honfeholds on the faith of the 
parent or head of the family ; ftill this would ‘be no proof, 
that noae were thus. baptized. When there is fufficient evi- 
‘dence of a divine inftitution, there being no account Of its be- 
ing prattifed, is no proof at all againit it. ‘The want of fuch 
an account is mere negative evidence, and’ therefore oan. have 
no weight againft pofitive proof. ‘ 
But further, it cannot with truth be afferted, that there is no 
example in the New-Teftament, where baptifm was admint{- 
tered to the children or honfehold, on account of the faith of 
the parent or head. For the houfehold of Lydia were bap- 
‘tized with her, altho’ there is no account, that any of them be- 
‘lieved ; as is evident frem the hiltory of the tranfattion, re- 
corded, Aéts xvi. 14, 75. And a certain woman named; 
‘Lydia, a feller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which wor- 
‘thipped God, heard us ; whofe heart the Lord opened, that 
the attended unto the things which were fpoken of Paul.’ And 
when fhe was baptized, and. her houfehold, fhe befought us, 
faying, If ye have judged me* to be faithful to the Lord, 
come into my houfe and abide there. And fhe conitrained 
_us.2 It appears from this account, that Lydia was of Thya- 
tira, originated from that city, but now lived with’ her. hovfe- 
hold or family in Philippi; where fhe had a houfe, in which 
fhe lgdged the apoftle for fome time. Whether Lydia was ea 
widow, ot had never been married, or whether her hufband 
‘was not mentioned, becaufe abfent or not a believer, is im- 
material. Itis certain, that fhe hada family or houfchold. 
And whether her family confifted of fervants, or children, cr 
‘both, is of no confequence to the argument. For the ftory 
reprefents, that they were baptized upon her faith, and gives _ 
not the leaft intimation, that any one of them belicved. PEP HGS 
exadlly correfponds with the practice of God’s ancient church. 


_ * Here it may be noticed, that she says, if ye havejudged me, [zot 
my household to be faithful or fincere in my profejion, Se. Lies 
wot this intimate, that she aloe professed ie be faithful or pious’? 


( 60 ) 
ST 

Thus when Abraham entered into c 
circymcifion, the feal of his faith upon, 
the males of his houfehold, as wellas | 
when any heathen became a oclmame 
in God ; the feal of the covenant was : 
ielf and houfehold. So when the ‘oe 
and fhe believed and. entered into covenant 
was baptized, and her houfehold ; and thu 
faith was applied to them as ‘well as to he 
then does the prattice of the apoftle in this 
with the prattice of God’s ancient 
believing Gentiles were graffed ? Liha ee 

But the Baptitts, a anxious to wien 
lies againft them, urge, that her 
believers ;, becaufe it is faid in the laf verfe of 
“ And they went out of the prifon, and ; ti 
of Lydia : and when they had feen the bret 
forted them.and departed.” Upon. this i ba 
that the apottles had been preaching many days 
after the converfion.of Lydia, and had rer ob man 
for we find by the epiftle to the Philippians, i 
church i in hd city with bifhops and deacons, — 
being beaten and cat into prifon, they were; | 
from prifon, defired to depart out of the city. we j 
returned to the k ule of Lydia, where they. had re 
when they had feen the brethren or converts, \ 
doubtedly colle& to fee them before | ty 
comforted them, and departed. ” Now jth iy not the 
timation, that by thefe brethren were.meant the 
Lydia, or that this houfehold. were all b y 
then, after all chat can be aid on the fabio g 
evidence, that the houfehold of diving were 
quently their baptifm, ftands in facre “writs 
favor of the baptifm of children or ho son a 
the faith of the parent or head. None therefore © 
truth affert, that there is no example in the ~New. ef 
where baptifm was adminiftered to the family upo 
ofthe head. There is alfo an account in this chapte 
baptifm of the jailor and his family. At is faid, that he 
baptized, and all his ftraightway. ” ‘But. there is no 
that any of them believed but himfelf. For the J tranf- 
lation of the Greek in the nest verfe is, * He rejoiced in 
or with all his houfe, he having believed in eas * ; 

It may farther be noticed, that in the acceunt ofthe apontee a 


(6) 
hing, it is faid, “ And they vee unto him the word of 
= Lord, and io all that were in his houfe,” intimating, that 
‘were fome prefent belides, his family. But in the ac- 
ant of his baptifm, it is not faid, “ He was baptized, and 
di that were in his houfe,” but “heand his,” i. ¢. fuch as 
belonged to him, were at his difpo his own family. 
And does not this plainly intimate, they were baptized 
upon his faith? elie why are they fo exprelsly called his? Bat 
ppoling, there had been no example of the baptifm of a fam. — 
y upon the parent’s faith, ftill, as before thown, it would be © 
no proof, that it was never practifed. aun 
Osj. 3d. The language of fcripture ij, “ Repent and be 
baptized ; believe and be baptized ;” which plainly thows, that 
pentance and faith are the condition of baptifin ; and there- 
fore it eught not to be applied to infants, who are incapable 
of giving any evidence of thefe. . 
Ans. Faith, as has been fhown, was as much the condi- 
tion of circumcifion, as itis of baptifm. The circumcifion- of 
Abraham therefore is declared to be a feal of the faith, which 
he had being yet uncircumcifed, thowing, that he fir believed, 
and then cireumcifed himéif and family in token of bis faith. 
So Heathen profelytes were required to profefs their faith in - 
God, before they were ‘circumcifed, and admitted into the 
ancient church. Had circumcifion therefore remained the 
feal of the covenant of grace in the Chriftian church, as it 
vas in the Jewifh ; and had the command been, “ Go’ teach 
all nations, cireumcifing them,” &c. woald not the apoftles 
ve addreffed the uncircumcifed, juft as they now did the un- 
aptized ? Had an uncircumcifed audience afked Peter, as the 
nbaptized Jews did, “Men and brethten, what fhall we - 
o 2? would he not have faid? « Repent and be cireamcifed”” — 
Or had an uncircumcifed eunuch atked, What hinders me to 
circumcifed ? Muit not the anfwer have been the fame ~ 
that was given by Philip, “ Thou mayeft, ifthou believeft with — 
all thine heart.” For as cireumcifion was a feal of the righte- 
eutnefs of faith ; Peter and Philip could not have rightfully 
circumcifed thefe perfons with®uc a profeflion of repentance or 
faith ; and therefore muft have anfwered them, jult as they 
now did with refpest to baptifm. Thefe confiderations fhow, 
that faith was as much the condition of adule circumcifion as 
of adult bapti!m. uve ; 
‘Therefore the direftion, Repent, or believe, and be 
baptized,” affords not the leaft evidence, that baptifra does not © 
aniwer to circumcifion; and is not to be applied to infants, as 


1 
1 
( 


{ 62) 

‘that was. Yea, the pti did not anfwer 
differently from what we, wko practife in ; 
in fimilar circumftances. The world i in : er 

baptized. And fhould an unbaptized a te like ‘the cunue 
afk what hinders me t be baptized ? We muft anfwer” “as 
did, “ If thou beli with all thine The ‘thou mayef 
For we fuppofe, that no fuch es, has a id to bapt 
without faith 


Ans. It is very evident, from what has been sisiaiy) fe 
that circumcifion was as really a feal or token of faith; as bz 
tifm is; yet God exprefsly commanded the Hebrew chv 
to apply this feal of the righteoufnels of faith to their ch 
dren. When therefore any aflert, that it is improper to ; 
ply the feal of the faith of believers to their infants ; they 
tad charge God with commanding an impropriety, and th 
highly impeach his charaéer. For it is undeniable, that 
did command this feal or token of faith to be applied to 
fants under the ancient difpenfation. Since therefore this 
jeGion lies as much againft infant-circumeifion, as infant-baj 
tifm, and even impeaches God with commanding what 
improper in his inflitutions ; it is manifeft, that it is falfe, at 
even prefumptuous. 

Further, baptifm according to our ideas of it is always: 1 
be a token of faith, When applied to childien, it isa tok 
of the parent’s faith as much as when applied to himfe 
Why then is it not as proper, that the feal of his’ faith fhow 
be applied to his children in token of his giving them up 
God ; as itis, that it ould be applied to bimielf in ‘token ¢ 
his giving up himfelf ? And when we confider the he pal 
infant-baptiim, that it isa token of the parent’s faith,a fi 
lemn renewal of his covenant—a dedication of his children t 
God, and binding himfelf to bring them up for. God, it ap. 
pears to be a very {uitable, folemn, fignificant tranfadtic a 

Another fimilar, and very pe pular objection i is, that bapti 
is an holy ordinance, and therefore it ought not to be Fe : 
io children who are unholy. RE Vat +; 

To this it may be anfwered, that circumeifion ac’ a teker 
of the covenant of grace, a feal -of the righteoufnels: of faith 

-dencted renovation of heart, &c. and therefore: was as holy 
an ordinance as baptifm—was the fame in its defign and’ ix 
port. And fimce circumcifion was, by divine~ command, 


(63) 

: applied to infants, we have no tight to fay, that baptifm, 
which anfwers to it,-is too holy to be applied to them. The ob- 
le@tion ifit prove any thing, as much proves, that circumcifion 
bught not to have been applied to infants ; as it does, that 
aptifm ought not to be applied to them fince that was as ho- 
ly an ordinance, asthis, Therefore it is certain, that the ob- 
‘edion is groundlefs. But, 

‘2dly. In what fenfe is baptifma holy ordinance? If the 
Reaning is, that it is holy in fuch a fenfe, that it ought not to 
x¢ applied to any, unlefs they give evidence of real holinefS 
of heart; thisis the very queftion in difpute. Therefore te 
Wert, that baptifm is holy in this fenfe isa mere begging of 
the queftion. But if this is not the meaning, and it is fuppofed 

o be holy in fome other fenfe ; then its being holy will afford 
30 evidence that it ought not to be adminiftered’ to infants. 
Therefore, bag 
' 3dly. Allowing, ‘that baptifm in a certain fenfe is 2 holy 
ordinance ; fo the children of believers are alfo in fome fenfe 
oly. For the apoftle exprefsly declares, concerning fuch, 
Elf weze your children unclean, but now are they holy.”” 
Sor. vii. 14. Why thenis it improper to apply a holy ordi- 
aance to thofe, whom the fcriptures term holy. Yea, there 
s reafon to conclude, that they are called holy in this fenfe, 
bat they are proper fubjects of this ordinance. 

Oxy. 5th. The baptifm of infants is of no benefit or ad- 
anitage .® ' 
Ans. There may be as much benefit in baptizing infants, 
as there was in circumcifing them. The Jews might have 
made the fame objection again circumcifing their ‘infants 3 
that they could not fee, that it would be ofany advantage to 
them. But would this have excufed them in neglecting this 

vine inftitution ? Neither willit excufe us in neglecting in- 
mat-baptifta ; fince there is fufficient evidence, that this isa 
y; enjoined upon the church of God. For our being igno- 
tant of what good purpofes a divine inftitution may aniwer, 
is no argument againft it; nor any excufe for neglecting it. 
Our duty is to obey the commands of God, whether we can 
feern the reafon or benefit of them, or not. Could we there- 
fore fee no advantage in infant-baptifm, yet that would be no 
proof at all againft it. But, 
2dly. The baptifm of infants may anfwer many good pur- 
pofes. Whenever an infant is baptized, the tran{aétion is 
calculated to remind the whole congregation of their native - 
depravity—that they are born in fin, and need to be fprinkled 


(64), 
with the blood of fprinkling, or to 
of regeneration. It is alfo calculate 
their covenant obligations to train up their 
to whom they have thus publicly devoted 

_ Further, parents do inthis way folemal 
and thus increafé their obligations; to bi 
‘in the nurture and admonition 0 
not advantageous to children, that th 
bound by the moft folemn engagements 
give them a religious education? - | 
Further, as children in the ordinance 
licly given up to God, and have the feal 
upon them; fo the church are under pecul 
take care, that they have a Chriftian ducatic 
from-finful courfes, and are: brought up i 
admonition of the Lord. » And we 2 
faithful in performing thefe duties t wards 
would have a peculiar tendency to reltyain 
to imprefs them with a fenfe of the. im 
thi ua! eee 
Parents likewife in this way pub ely x 
and renew covenant with God, by = 
their children, and fo are reminded 


: = 
PAG ols 


mentstowardsGod. he eae % = 
And if parents do obey God. by hear ly © 
children to him according to his appointment, an 


ful by religious initru@ions and examples to brin 
the nurture and admonition of the iLor 
t encouragement to hope fora. divine 

Ebildreno-ciet Goa according ates x 
xliv. 3, will pour out his {pirit upon their feec 
fing on their offspring: pa ca » hor 
is pleafed to reftrain fuch chi 
many of them he is pleafed toirenew-c 
dicace of their pious parents, and to wha 
them in this refpe& ; as God gr 
pofterity of Abraham on account 
dience?. None therefore can affert, the 
tifm is not, thro’ a divine bleffing, ben 
well asto their pious parents. = ©) & sau e 

And if it isa. divine infiitation, as. has beenp 
negle@of itmuft be difpleafing to (God, and: 
frowns. : >” gf pa ee 


As it is often atked, what benefit there 


- 5 OMT, 
alts 
ut. 


| (55) 
cen, I would ask what advantage there is im baptizing 2- 
pene ‘The water of itfelf can. is ofho more fpiritual heneait 
adults than to infants. Is there any other advantage in the 
baptifrn of adults, than as it isa token of their faith, the anfwer 
of a good confcience in obeying a divine command, and as it 
tends to remind them of their obligations to God. And may 
mot every parent experience all thefe advantages, whenever he 
vives up a childin this ordinance? It-appears therefore, that 
the baptifm of infants, rightly viewed, is not a mere trivial 
ceremony, but a very ferious and important transaction, may an- 
wer many good purpofes both to parents and children, and be 
of as much advantage, as infant-circumcifion was. But even 
£ we could difcern no-benefit in it, ftill as has been fhown, 
at would be no proof againft it. 
- Osj. 6th. If perfons are baptized in infancy, as a token of 
their parent’s faith, then they will have no token of their own 
faith, when they themfelves believe, efpecially if they have no 
hildren to offer in baptifm. Healy 
Ans. This obje@tion is as forcible again circumcifing, as 
baptizing infants. For thofe who were circumcifed when in- 
ants, had no more a token of their own faith when they be- 
ieved ; than thofe have, who are now baptized in infancy. 
None could become members of God’s ancient church, un- 
Jefs they were circumcifed, or had the ftanding feal of Gad’s 
covenant applied to them. Ifthey had not received this feal 
in infancy, it was to be applied to them, when they made a 
profeflion of their faith. But if they had once received the 
eal or token of the covenant ; their profeffing to aflent to this 
covenant, and to ratify the dedication, made by their parents 
by devoting themfelves to God, was confidered a fufficient to- 
ken of their faith witout being circumcifed anew. So it is 
with refpe@ to baptifm. None can become members of the 
Chriftian church, unlefs baptized in the name of the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghoft. But when once this feal of the cove- 
nant of grace has been adminiltered to a perfon ; there is no 
‘more neceffity or warrant to repeat it, when the perfon him- 
felf believes, affents to this covenant, and ratifies the dedication 
‘made by his parents by devoting himfelf to God, than there 
‘was for a Jew to receive circumcifion anew, when he believed. 
There are various other ways, in which Chriftians manifeft or 
tbetoken their faith, as well as by dedicating themfelves in 
baptifm. hey do it by a public profeflion, and whenever 
they attend upon the Lord’s fupper, or offer a child in baptifm. 
Therefore perfons, who have been baptized in infancy, are 
i I 


( 66) % 


et no neceflity to be re- baptized, when they bles in or- 
der to betoken their faith. 

Oxy. 7th. Baptifm cannot spa inflead of cin 
caufe,the latter was applied to males only, and was p 
formed on the eighth day, butthe Pe 5 is pel Rab i, Pe eds 
to both fexes,and at any time: therefore we cannot ad 
trom the one-to the other. rig 

Ans. Itis abundantly evident from our fubje&, that the de- 
fign and import of circumcifion' and baptifm are the fame ; 
and that baptiim i is now the feal or token of the believer’ s 
faith, and fo of the covenant of grace, as circumcifion Was un~ 
der the Jewith difpenfation. It is certain. at _bap- 
tifm does anfwer to circumcifion—is the feal the end co» 
venant, altho’ there may be fome circumfantial difference. 
Suppofing a certain king had a feal_or _ which, he. ign 
rected to be affixed to all deeds to render th legal... - 
terwards he appointed a new feal, of a erent form, ane ee 
reéted, that it ould be applied not only to all dai hn 
toall bonds. Now in this cafe would there be any: truth 
propriety in afferting, that the new feal did. not. ad  inead 
of the o/d one; merely becaufe it was to be seed, bonds, bs 
well as deeds—was to be more extenfively appli en ar than the 
old ane was ? Neither is there any truth or reat nD. in ferting, 
that baptifm, becaufe applied to both fexes, di nak come. 11 
the.room of .cicumcifion; fince they, are both feals of the 
fame righteoufnefs of faith, or of the {ame “covenant of grace. 
Under the ancient dilpentatian, God was, pleafed to appoint 
afeal of his covenant, which was Ae of to, ‘ales op only. 
But {till females might be.admitted into. Pee Se A 
by profeffion, partaking of the facrifices, &c. eed 
Chriftian difpenfation, which is more free anc _ extenfive, and 
in which there is no diftinétion of nations and fe es, G ‘ha: 

appointed a feal, whichis applicable to both. exes. Accor. 
dingly the apoftle declares, that ‘ There is neither, Jew. no} 
Greek, neither male nor female : For ye are. all one in C rift 
Jefus.” But becaufe baptifm is. thus applied. to both fexes 
er more extenfively, than circumcifion was, it no. more prov 
that it did not come in the room of circumeifion as the feal o 
the righteouinefs of faith ; than the,king’s new Jeal being. ap 
plied to bonds as well as io deeds, PION ibs ad did not come 
inftead of the ofd one. 

Neithes is it any proof, that bapiie does. ‘not anfwer ‘te 
See tsellioay becaule the latter was to be serformed on_ thi 
eighth day, and might’ be done by parents, while there's 1 


Fisk 


O47 | 


aad day fixedfor the Admiiiftration of the former, and 
be adminiltered by a minifter of the gofpel. . If the— 
ee ordinances are of the fame import, and anfwer the fame 
ends in God’s church under different difpenfations, i itis mant- 
felt, that the one ftands inftead of the other, notwithftanding 
bere may be fome circumftantial difference between them. 7 
' Thus the paflover was to be attended-on a certain day of 
the month and year, at a certain time of the day, viz. at eve- 
ning ; and it was not neceffary, that any prie(t fhould be pre- 
fent and’affzt at the’table, when itwas eaten. But with ref 
pect to the Lord’s fupper, there are no. ‘particular directions; 
how often, or on what day, or particular timeofthe day it 
is to be attended, and it isto be adminiftered by a gofpel 
minifter. But notwithftanding thefe circumftantial differen- 
tes, the Lord’s fupper now very ftrikingly anfwers to the 
paflover j jn the ancient church, and evidently ftands: inftead of 
it, as has been already fhown. fence the apoltle {peaks of 
the Lord’s fupper in the language of the-pafchal feaft. ‘ For 
even Chrift, our paffover, is facrificed for us. Therefore let us 
keep the feaft, not with old leaven, neither with the save of 
‘atalice and wickednefs, &c. ~ 
Thefe confiderations clearly evince, that fuch ae cele 
tial differences between baptifmr and circumcifion, as have 
been confidered under this cbjeGion, afford no proof, that 
the one did not come inftead of the other. But to fupport 
the objection, that baptifm does not anfwer to: circumcifion, 
it is neceflary to prove, that they are not both feals of the 
righteoufnefs of faith, or of the covenant of grace, which it 
is evident none can do. For until this is Hie it will be mani- 
feft that the one anfwers to the other, whatever circumftan- 
‘tial difference there may be between them. 
One particular reafon, why the circumcifion of Riker, 
‘under that difpenfation, was deferred till the eighth day, was 
the ceremonial impurity of the mother, and confequently of 
‘the child: —“ Ifa woman have born a man-child, fhe fhall be 
unclean feven days—and on the eighth day he fhall be cir- 
cumcifed.” But as this reafon is not applicable under the 
Chriftian difpenfation, and as there is no particular time ap- 
“pointed for baptifm or the Lord’s fwpper, the adminiftration 
of thefe ordinances, is left difcretionary as to the time. If 
‘eonvenient, children may be dedicated to God in baptifa be- 
fore the eighth day. But if circumftances render it inconve- 
‘nient, the omiffion of it till after this time will not be blamea- 
‘ble. But ‘parents undoubtedly ought thus to dedicate their 


* 


(68) 
, oe Ae sy 

children as foon as it may be done with fafety™: r 
ence. And all unneceflary delays are blameabl 

» Osy. 8th. The Jews when they were | 
altho’ they had been circumcifed har “and t ‘tow 
that baptifm did not come in the roome 
hot a feal of the fame covenant, for if it lend ting chidioae 
have been no need of repeating it by sie tee, shee ‘whi b ae 
been cireumcifed, #90. ba! ddl 

Ans. God, in appointing the feals- ofthis covenant, has a 
perfect right to direé&t, how they fhall be applied. When 
therefore he inftituted a new feal of his: his wy} or of the 
righteoufne(s of faith ; it belonged to ‘hi » whether i 
fhould be applied to thofe, who had received the old feal, o: 
not. Ifhe fawbelt, he certainly had-a right to direét, that 
it fhould be applied to thofe who had ‘received the old  feal 
when they profeffed their faith in Chrift, and united with ‘| 
church under the new difpenfation. If then, as: has bee 
thown, circumcifion and baptifimare both feals of the fame'e 
venant of grace, or of the righteoufnefs of faith; it would - 
no evidence, that the one does not anfwer to the. other 3) bi 
caufe the circumcifed Jews were baptifed when they believed j 
even if we were unable to fee the reafon of this civine direc. 
tion. For God hada perfect right to dire& bine — as bh 
faw fit. But; 

It is argued by the Baptitts, that wiih one feats inti itu 
ted inhuman governments, it is never applied to what I 
been already fealed or ratified; as it would be difannulli 
what the government had before done. Since therefore bap- 
tifm was adminiftered to thofe who had received cireumcifior 
they on this ground urge, that thefe ordinances cannet: ‘be fi 
of the fame covenant. ty 

To this it may be anfwered, that m ‘haman Pemiieeateil 
would be inconvenient, when a new feal was inftituted, to 
quire the new-fealing of every thing, which had been ratifie 
by the old feal. But doubtlefs there might be ei 5 
in which a human government might be juftified fn! fac 
requirement. And were this the cafe, it could not with any 
truth be faid, that the zew /eal did not comé im the™ “room 0 
‘the old one, merely becaufe for certain reafons it ae em be ap 
plied to what had been already ratified by theold 

But further, the Moft High in the management of his va 
kingdom ts not obligated to conform ‘to thofe cuftoms and 
practices, which may be convenient or expedient in hums 
governments. The reafons which influence them may-a 


( 69 ) 


ae We 


bes ren ee 
wer tohim. We cannot therefore reafon from their pro- 
_ eeedings to his, with any degree of certainty. In appointing 
new feal to his covenant, God might fee reafons, why it 
_ was belt it fhould be applied to thofe, who had received the 
‘old one... Confequently he had a perfect right to direct, that 
 yemtase be applied to them. — la 
* In this view it is evident, that. the baptifm of thofe, who. 
had before reeeived circumcifion, affords not the leaft proof, 
_ that they are not both feals or tokens of the fame covenant ‘of 
grace. Thefe confiderations might be a fufficient an{wer to 
the objection. But, | beer ' 
.  adly. eee. many reafons, why it was fuitable, that 
_ the circumcifed Jews fhould be baptized, when they profeiled 
“gheir faith in Chri. The Jewith church, which pradtifed cir- 
cumcifion, and profeffed to be God’s people, had become ve- 
ry corrapt—had_ rejected Chrift the Son of God, and put hins 
to death... When therefore Chrift rofe from the dead, and fet 
up the Chriftian difpenfation, he inftituted a new feal for his 
ehurch., Thofe who profeffed to believe in Jefus Chrift, were 
so be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
- Ghoft, to diftinguifh them from the unbelieving Jews, as 
pel as from the Heathen ; juft as circumcifion under the 
ancient difpenfation was defigned to diftinguifh the people of 
God from Heathen idelators. Since therefore the great body 
of the Jews, who prattifed circumcifion, rejected ‘Chrift and 
his gofpel, it appears very fuitable that thofe of them who be- 
. Kieved in him, fhould be baptized in his name, altho’ they had 
been cireumcifed; that they might be diftinguifhed from the 
nation in general, who were broken off from. God’s_ church 
by unbelief, and were enemies to the gofpel of Chrift. Thus 
whenever a believing Jew prefented himfelf or children for 
baptifm, it wasa public manifeftation ‘of his receiving the 
Saviour. ,; et 
Further, when the Chriftian difpenfation was fet up, and 
_ she unbelieving Jews were broken. off from God’s charch af- 
ter the deash of Chrift ; circumcrfion then ceafed to be the 
feal of the righteoufnels of faith, or of the covenant of grace. 
‘Thofe who were unbaptifed therefore had not upon, them the 
eal of the righteoufnels of faith, which belonged to the Chrif- 
tian difpesfation, Was it not very fuitable then, that the 
Jews thould receive the feal of the new difpenfation, when they 
_ profeffed to receive the Saviour? We can therefore fee fome 
_reafons, why it was proper, spanepe believing Jews fhould be 
baptized; altho’. they had before received circumcifion, 


(7° ) 
which wasa feal of the fame covenant under the old difpenfa- 
rons, LMR eh 

Oxy. oth. Jefus Chrift, who came to be Our €xample, was 
baptized at adult age, therefore we ought to ‘imitate him ‘in 
this refpect. + em ighe 6 po 
- Ans. If Chrift was baptized for our example, is it not as 
auch a proof, that we mutt not be baptifed until thirty years 
old, as itis that we muft not, till we become adults. For’ 
Jobn was baptifing fome time, before Jefus went to him for 
baptifm. Luke informs us in his gofpel, iii. 21. that, “ whe 
all the people were baptized, it came to pafs, that Jefus alfo 
was baptized.” Chrift waited till he “beggm,to be about” 
thirty years of age,” before he went to be b d; altho’ he’ 
might have been baptized fome time before. If then “he was” 
baptized as an example for us, ought we not to wait,’ till of 
‘the fame age ? For certainly we cannot expect to be qualified 
for this ordinance at an earlier age than our Saviour. © 

Further, Chrift’s baptifm could not be of the fame import 
and defign, as the baptifm of Chriftians. As he was perfec 
ly. holy, it could not denote repentance, renovation of heart, 


at 
cleanfing from fin, &c. or the need of thefe ; as the baptifm of | 
others does. Neither is there aay eviderice, that John bapti- 
zed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, which” 
is the form of Chri(tian baptifm, inftituted by Chrift “after his” 
refurrection. Efpecially we cannot fuppofe, that Chrift was” 
baptized in his own name. This fhows that the “baptifm of 
our Saviour, was different in its nature, defign and form from 
that which isnow adminiftered in the Chriftian ‘chureh, and 
therefore we cannot determine from his example, at what'age 

we ought to be baptized, with any degree of certainty. His 
baptiim was evidently a public confecration or’ introduction’ 
to the mimiltry, on which he was now ‘entering as 6ur great 

high prieft. it was therefore in conformity tothe law of 
God, which inftituted a fimilar form for confecrating the high 


prieft to his office. . 

The priefis under the law entered on their public ‘fervice 
at thirty years of age; fo Chrift, “when he began to be a- 
bout thirty years of uge” was baptized and entered’ upon his 
public miniftry. .They were confecrated to’ their’ office by 
being walhed with water as to their hands’ and feet} and by 
being anoimted with oil, which was poured on their heads. 
In conformity to this law, Jefus Chrift, our great high prielt 
was publicly confecrated or introduced into his miniftry by 
baptiim, and the anointing of the Holy Ghoft, which’ defcend* 


: ( 71 } 
| Pe spp a% ; ee ea 


upon him a neiaede after i hy was ia egticed. For Peter 
tas of Chrift’s preaching, fays, «That word ye know, 

_ began from Galilee, after the baptifm which John 
eached, how God anointed Jefus of Nazareth with the Holy 
ft,and with power.” As his baptifm was in conformi- 
ty, to the law for » confecrating the priefts ; ; he therefore fays 
to John, « ‘Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteoufnefs. ~ 
Since therefore the baptifm of our Saviour was different in its 
nature, defign and form, from thebaptifm practifed in the Chrif- 
tian church; there is notthe leaft reafon or propriety in fappofing, 
that it was defi as a rule or example for us in this -refpect, 
unlefs we are about to undertake the fame office, which he 
performed. - To argue, that nochildren ought to be dedicated 
to. God by baptifm ; becaufe Chrift was not confecrated by 
baptifm to his public miniftry till 30. years of age, is certa inly 
-wery weak and inconclufive. 

Befides, could it be proved, that Chrift’s baptifm was the 
fame in its nature and defign, as the baptifm now pradtifed, 
“ftill it would be no proof, that it ought not to be adminiftered 
to infants. When circumcifion was firft inftituted as the {eal 
of the righteoufnefs of faith, Abraham received it at. 99 years 
of age. But this was no proof, that it was not to be applied 
to children afterwards, or that none was to be circumcifed 
till gg years old. So fhouldit even be allowed, that Chrift, 
_and others who profeffed their faith in him, were baptized at 
30 years old or at-adult age, when Chriftian baptifm was ffrit 
inftituted ; yet this would be no proof againft infant-baptifm. 
Tt would afford no more argument againft it, than Abraham’s 
adult circumcifion did againft the circumeifion of infants. It 
is, evident therefore from various confiderations, that the. bap- 
| tifm, of Chrift, affords no argument or objection of any _ weight 
againft infant-baptifm. 

a Os3. 1oth, The covenant of which circumcifion was the 
feal, is abolifhed ; and therefore baptifm cannot be a feal of 
' the fame covenant. 

Ans. Circumcifion was a feal of the Abrahamic covenants 
and that, it has been already fhown, was in reality the cove- 

_ nant of grace. Confequently it has not been abolifhed ; for 
' the covenant of grace is immutable and eternal. And that 
_ the Abrahamic covenant is not difannulled is abundantly evi- 
dent from the words of. the apoRle. For he declares that th: 
bleffings of Abraham have come upon the Gentiles thro’ Je- 
fas Chrift: Since therefore believing Gentiles now enjoy the 
bleffings of the Abrahamic covenant, that God will Be theic 


Po 


472) 
f 


Gods i it is certain, that this covenant, is. not abpli 
is alfo-by this covenant, that Abraham \ as conf 
father of many nations, or of all them. 
believing Gentiles are conftituted “ 
heirs according to promife.’’ Thefe fider is ch 
evince, that the Abrahamic covenant is firiatly. “e a a everlatt- 
ing covenant,” asit is called, Gen. xvii, and that i it ¢ Oe 
fubftance, yet ftand in full Force! : 
Oxy. 11th. Ifwe argue baptifm from circumeifion, then - 
all children in Chriftian countries ought to be Ragas em cue 
all the Jéwifh children were cea: $3 
Ans. All the Jews, who ety wae children, . é 

profefledly in covenant with God, z church. *) 
By this very tranfaction of circu ng ‘their “dilden they 
profeffedly affented to God’s covenant. The ar; gument there- 
fore from circumcifion proves, that all, who profefs t 
into covenant with God, and become members « of | hare 
are to put the feal of this covenant ‘upon uy children. 
This was the conftitution ' under the Jewith | 
; a and ought tobe the pradice: i the’ Ch 

ut, ; 
2dly. It is undoubtedly true, thatall children in tahvaigs 
countries ought to be baptized. All parents ought immedi- 
ately torepent, believe, and then comply te Sie rie Ke ite 
of grace, and put the feal of it upon their chil 
parent is very criminal in negletting it. But meee 
or ever were required to profefs to Bei in God? $ coven 
wicked or impenitent heart, and thus play the hypoci 
God has always condemned. Thus he Heatiobed’ ne 
ites for flattering him with their mouth, and” rity hy as 
with their tongue ; while their heart was not 
to-the wicked he faid, Pfalm 1]. **What haft thou 
thou fhould’ft take my covenant in thy mouth ?” see 4 
he difapproved of the wicked’s profefling to a9 3 600, 
verant. ~ : 
Thusa right view of the Abrahamic coral the Feed! 
ith church, and of the nature and defign of circumcifion,’ elven ied 
fhows, how weak and inconclufive the mol Cntr 
ments and objections are, which are urged a Infant bap. 
tifm. We have alfo fuggelted various, other confiderati 
in anfwer to objeétions, urged ‘by thé Ba tits. Saran, Pe 
the proof; adduced from circumcifion being a feal of the cove- 
nant of grace, and the Jewith church being’ effentially the 
fame with the oat ftand firm pe: all ids athe objeations? 


Heat 
& 
: 
Hae 


ees a sate 


apy nae venga ciacinetinr! adouh 
he minds of the Corinthian Chriftians, whether 
in the marriage relation was conyert- 


Ipc ole! as children of the church or of the 
bs cay to betreated as the children of the believer or 
unbeliever. In anfwer to thefe queries, the gpetndontca 
the believer not to put away or leave the unbelievin 
late. For the unbelieving hufband is fan@ified by — ess 
oii anon wife by the bufband ; fo that the believer 
may a jult right to the ufe and enjoyment of the unbelie- 
ver infin selation. _ Juft as it is faid in another place, “To 
pure a are pure. And every creature of Godis 
good, for it is fanGified by the word of God and prayer.” 
“ Elfe were your children unclean ; but now are they holy.” 
If it had been. wrong for believers to ‘have lived in the mar 
ze relation with their unbelieving partners, but muft have 
put ¢ away, asthe Jewsdid their Heathen wives; then 
their children alfo muft have been treated as uncleanor the chil- 
ers. But now fince the unbeliever is fanGi- 
in relation to the believer, the children are holy—are to be 
peta as the children of believers. Here the apoftle makes 
a difference between the children of believers and unbelievers ; 
the one he calls unclean and the other holy. It is certain 
therefore, that the children of believers ar: in fome fenfe holy. 
But none can rationally fappofe, that they are all born with 
‘renewed or holy hearts. In what fenfe then are they holy ? 
Is it ie eect in this fenfe, that they are confecrated to 


EK 


C74.) 
‘God in baptifm, and have the feal of his covenant app 
them, or that they’are the proper fubjetts” of this ord 
Things thus confecrated to‘God are often calle : 
dcripture.’ Thus the children of the Jewith chu 
who'werein covenant, ‘were called a holy feed, “Bui 
dren of Heathen, or of thofe who bt igi “in 
were confidered 4s unclean, and migh t nott jus be 
to God in circumcifion. ‘So the children © 
now termed unclean, as they‘are not to be confectated 
in ‘baptifm.~ Is not this evidently the meanin; RS the 
in this pafflage ? And does it*not therefore « teat 
the cHildren‘of believers are now to be aetbeet ed 
tifm, as they were’ to be devoted to him by cireumcifion M. 
the Jewith difpenfation ? The ye ah of aptifm, to 


evade the argument ‘from this p: y are: 
that holyhere means legitimate. but this'i 
the term holy'is never“ufedin any’ ‘other part ¢ fc 
therefore is very ‘evidently ‘a foredd, utmararal ‘c oj 
merely to €vade-an‘atgament, whith they’ ( 
anfwer. ‘Belides, may not “the children ev vers be 
gitimates and in this fenfe’holy, as well ag en of ‘belie. 
vers Or tan we fuppofe, that the ‘apoftle meant ‘to me ne 
thatthe children of all unbelievers were baftards? "Do a 
thefé confiderations clearly thow, thatthe term ‘oly h 
not mean the'fame aslegitimate ; as the “o polers. 6 
baptifm would fain make us believe. ~ 

** Again, ‘under the former difpenfation the atihren of 
parents, who entered into covenant with’ God, ¢ or’ ‘to 
his church, were: dedicated to God by” having the feal of his 
éovenantapplied'to them. The Jews efteemed He a great 
privilege to have the feal of God’s covenant th lie 
their children ; and’even the apoftle teaches, | ¥ : ‘Was 
stich profit in circumcifiom. Tf therefore the token of the 
covenant had'not been applied to children under the Chrilti at 
difpenfation, would not the Jéws have cavilled and” 0 

againft the gofpel on ‘account ‘of its thus excludin; ; 


drer 
from this privilege? They Were greatly attached to a ca 


vileges, were very ready to cavil when they were | 
and very apt ta cbjecé againtt the gofpel, when ‘they 

find any ebeatin, '- Since therafted tke ae not fin ie peg 
ever objedted againtt the gofpel on account of "ite excluding. 
children from ‘this privilege, there’ is great ‘reafon to believ 
that ihey Were’ not ereliteed: but had the {eal by 8 Tighteoul- 


aie EMLOGE 


(75) 
ds 3 j =» ded ; oi o aes s - “y 
nefs of faith, or of God’s covenant applied to them, asvit, wag 


ae Jewith church. Rui% ‘ 
Further, the apoftle.in .anfwering. the qneftions, “ VW hat 
advantage hath a Jew?" And-what profit is there of circumcte 
Son? fays, .“ Much:every way.” . This fhowssthat it was a 
privilege for Jewifh children.to be given. up. to. God—have 
Bre feal of his covenant put upon them,and to -have their pe- 
_ fents folemaly, bound to briag:them up in..the,knowledge and 
fervice of God. If therefore the profit ofcircumcifion in thefe 
tefpects was asthe apoltle: declares;.« much.every way,’ then 
certainly its abolition muft be. lofs.to childrenin thefe refpetts, 
unlefs there is fomething-apppinted in its.reom. But as. the 
sofpel difpenfationis:reprefented as more extenfive and rich 
fear the former, it affords great reafon.to- conclude, that.the 


advantage of circumcifion.is fully fupplied.to-.the: children. of 
BeKevers by:the introduction of bapti:m.in its-ftead. ee 
* 2dly. Omitting other arguments; which might be addu- 
ced from the word of God, it may be.obferved, that the proof 
in fayor of infant-baptifm is. greatly confirmed bythe praéice - 
of the church-in the early ages of Chriflianity. .Origen, who 
lived’106 years after the apoftles, declares, that-infant-baptifm 
had been the conftant ufage of the- church from the. days of 
the apoftles,. He fays,.“ That the church had anorder from 
the apoftles to. give baptifm to infants.’ He alfo argued 
from infant-baprifm to prove original fin, or the natural de- 
pravity of the human heart.. This.fhows that it was an.uw- 
controverted prattice of the church ; otherwile, he could not, 
with propriety, have ufed itasan argument to eftablith. ano: 
ther point. ; 

About 50.years-after this, ‘‘a.queftion was ftarted by one 
Fidus, whether baptifm ought not to be given to: infants on 
the eighth day, according to .the law-of. cireumcifion.. .This 

- queftion was propofed to 66 Bifhops or minifters, convened at 
Carthage, who, unanimouily, refolved, that it. was not ne- 
ceflary to defer baptifm to the eighth day, but it might be 
given at any time before, ifconvenient.”. But none of them 
manifetted the leaft doubt or fcruple about the praétice of ime 
fant-baptifm. A large letter, containing the reafons. of this 
tefolve, was written. by Cyprian, in the name of the council. 

Now among fucha. number. of minifters, doubtlefs there 
were fome 60 or 70 years. old,, who. could remember within 
lefs than 100 years of the apoftles, _ If therefore- infant-bap- 
tifm had been, a pradice, introduced. fince the days of tha 
apoftles, fome of them muft have known it. And if fo, is it 


(76) 


not ranges that none of halite thould ir intimate arty | 
bout it? ie.” x 
About 100 years after this time A mbrofe 
the baptifm of infants had been the pra@ice c 
aaa the church till that time.” ; 
Auftin, about 300 years after the apoftles, had, 
fy with one Pelagius about original fin. To prove 
tin frequently urges infant-baptifm, « 1g, wi 
are baptized for the remiffion of fin, if they hat : 
altho’ Pelagius appeared greatly puzzled | wi ee ‘gument, — 
yet he didnot pretend to deny the duty or prz © of infante 
baptifm. Now Pelagius was a man of great learning and in- © 
formation, and had been perfonally acquainted with: moft © 
oted churches in Europe, Afia, and Africa. And had in 
fant-baptifm been adeparture from the apoftolic praétice, he 
“mauft have had fome intimation of it. Andhadhe known it, 
he doubtlefs would have mentioned it torelieve himfelf from | 
the argument from infant-baptifm, with which he was fo em. 
‘barraffed. . This affords a ftrong argument, that Ni arin . 
tifm has been the praétice of the church from the d pil of the 
apofiles.’ For had the whole Chriftian ehurch roughout 
Afia, Africa and Europe, departed from © canally prac-. 
tice, fuch a public matter mu have been ‘known. 
And if fo Pelagius would not have failed to mention it to 
obviate Auftin’s arguments from infant-baptifm. 
There is no account of any church in all the ‘Chriftian 
world, that ever denied or fpoke againit jnfant-baptifm for — 
i100 years after Chrift. In 1130 there appeared a fmall 
number in France, who denied the pofibility of the falvation 
of infants ; and confequently their right to baptifm. — But : 
this fe& foon difappeared. Excepting ‘thefe there ‘is no, ak 
count of any church, that held at all to’ water which | 
denied the baptifm of infants till about the year’ 1520. Then 
the prefent fect of Anabaptifts took their rife in ead 
whence they have fpread ‘into various parts of | Spates 
America, 

Now the Chriflian religion, in the days of the apt 
propagated into many diftant countries, and churches were 
eftablifhed in Europe, Afia, and: Africa, ,in different! ae 
and nations, feveral thoufand miles diftant from each’ 

But if thefe churches had been every where eftablithed upon 
the plan of adult-baptifm only, and no children had be i 
zed ; how could infant-baptifm become fo univerfally 

lent thro? all the Chriftian world, among: ‘different “nations, 


(77) 
urches thoufands of we di diftant,. 4 sin the courfe of 


C ok rs from the apottles ? ? How could fuch afpeedy and 


eration take place ina matter o fach public, notoriety, 


no.0 ppolition raifed againg i it ? Ibis moft irrational to’ fuppofe 
For there is ; a very Particular hiftory of the religious doc- 
ies, rites, difputes and divifiéns of the Chriftian church in: 


Per. ages re iain And when ; any new religious i 


ents 01 tices were introduced, it ufed to occafion 
7 ae 


ei ifpures and | divi ions, And there is generally an ac- 


when, and by whom, they were introduced, and who 


dppofed t 2m. But there i is NO account of any fuch conten: 
Spe or divi ifion about infant-baptifm. Neither can any perfon 
tell, v when or by whom, it was introduced, if not by the apof- 
tes. “But can we rationally fuppofe, that a matter of fuch 
importance : and notoriety as infant-baptifm could, direétly:con-. 
trary to the | orattice of the apoftles and all the churches which ~ 
they | had eftablifhed, be fo early i introduced into all the Chrif- : 


tian charches without any oppofition or contention, and no. 
one be able to know, when or by whom, it was introduced ? 


The fuppofition i is ver unreafonable. ; Thefe . confiderations | 


tai great importance, and yet 9 ae be made about® its 


afford an a ar gument « great weight) that at infant-baptifm was . 


an apotti p srattice ; 5 and thus they greatly corroborate the 
proof in favor of it, which has been adduced from. the 
{criptures. 

To invalidat this argument, it is urged, ee Shergienght in 
the early ages  Chriftianity, appeared to, have wrong. ideas 
of the . nature ie atl defign of baptifm ; and that if they. miftook 
in this refpe@, they. might alfo. with relbert: to. Shakey why were 
‘the’ proper fubjects of baptifm. 


Tn anfwer to this it may be obferved, that dies are many 


perfons i in all Chriitian churches even. at the. prefent day, who, 
are very far from having correct, juftideas of the nature and 


defign of the ordinances and inftitutions of the. golpel. ; \ Pere.. 


fon are very liable to miltake in their opinions, concerning the 


nature ; and defign of thefeerdinances. But whether the. apot. ; 
tles bap tized infants or not, -was a plain matter of -fa&, in 
which j it ‘Was. ‘amp ible for Chriftians who then lived, to mit - 


ary __They could not but know, whether the ‘apofties bapti- « 


children, or not, . And if they. did ‘not baptize them + 


eae they mult have known, when infant-baptifm. was fir ine « 
troduced, that it we was an innovation, and contrary. ‘to the vas © 
poltolic prattice. ‘Allowing then, that Chriftians in the early © 


ages of Chrifianity, might have fome wrong ideds of the na- 


(7) 
tare and defign. of baptifm ;. yet this will not-2 
their teftimony to a plain matter of fates: v h 
that infant-baptifm.was pradtifed by the es 
been the practice of the Chriftian churches ever fince. “4 
“But it is further urged that. infant communion and other 
grofs errors, as well as infant-baptifm, were early admitted 
mto the aren church, “4 4 
Ans, Infant-baptifm was univerfally prevalent in rhe 
Chriftian churches, before we have any saccount of thefe 
rors. Altho’ infant-communion might be pradifed in fome 
churches ;. yet I know of no account, that it ever was an uni- 
verfal practice in all the Chriftian churches. Neither is it 
afferted by writers in thofe early times, that it was the prac 
tice of the church from the.days. of the _— as baptifn 
was. And fo with refpect to the other grofs errors, they ge 
nerally occafioned. much difpuite and, contention when intrc 
duced —did not prevail fo early.as infant-baptifm muft have 
done—and were never fo univerfally prevalent in: all parts ¢ 
the Chriftian world.. PRRs! 
« The different fees of Chriftians were often inflamed’ a: 
‘« gainft each other by very fmall differences. It is therefore 
“ utterly unaccountable, that there fhould be no difpute, when 
“ this /uppofed fundamental error of infant-baptifm was introdu- 
“ced; nor the Jealt remains of any ‘controverfy about it 
* until within thefe two or three hundred years.”* . 
Now whatis there to counterbalanceall this evidence, which 
has been éxhibited in favor of infant-baptifm? There> is no 
direét, pofitive evidence again it; for none pretend, that 
there are any commands or prohibitions again it.’ The argt 
ments urged againft it,are merely negative, fuclhas the wan 
of a command or example for it—the direfion-to repent, 
lieve, and be baptized—that it can dono goody and- 
other objections, as have, been: confidered, and which: as" 
ready fhown, may beeafily obviated. It appears, that there 
is direct and pofitive . evidence in favor ef infant-baptifm, bu 
no pofitive proof againi it ; and that the mo planfible ob- 
jections againft it arife from miftaken ideas of the Abrahamic 
covenant, or of the nature and defign of baptifm. If thei 
things are attentively and. eandidly»confidered, will not the 
evidence in favor of infant-baptifm appear conclufive and 
fatisfaQory to every unprejudiced mind ? For fince there is 
dire&t and pofitive evidence in favor of it; and no pofitive evi- 


* Dol. Lathrep’s fermous o2 infant-baptifmes yg, bagure 


(7) 


againftit ; isit mot unreafonable ‘to "deny-the duty of 
aptifm ? It is acting againft evidence. bode f 
s it not ftrange that any can be fo eppofed to publicly 
fecrating their children to God by putting the feal of his 
enant, and-of their faith upon them; as. Chrift’s ancient 
rch were commanded to. do? Was it not a privilege, that 
s parents under the former difpenfation might thus dedi- 
their dear children to God: and entertain a ‘hope, that 
fame divine bleffings would defcend on them, as on their 
fouls? Thus Chrift, as to his human nature, “ was coa- 
*fecrated.to God ;: and according to the law, he was brought 
to thetemple, to be prefented tothe Lord. And ftrange it 
‘is, that all.pious parents do noteven long to make the fame 
genes confecration of their children to the Lord at this 
6 a : ae ‘ 


SBIR 1ektc<ts 85055 2, ; 
“Wy. It appears, that the denial of infant-baptifm has a ten- 
dency tolead intoother hurtful errors. It leads perfons to 
fuppofe, that the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant 
of grace, requiring faith as its condition, but a mere temporal, 
external affair ; and that therefore circumcifion the token of 
it was.not afeal of the faith of believers as the apoftle de- 
clares—that the Hebrew church was not the real vifible churck 
of God, but merely a type of it—that God did not in his co- 
venant with that church require faith and a- right heart or real 
religion, as the condition of the promifed blefings, but merely 
external obedience, and promifed them “nothing but worldly, 
temporal bleflings upon. their compliance—that perfons might 
enter into God’s covenant, fulfil all its requirements, be en- 
titled to all its bleffings and fo become members of God’s an- 
cient church aceording to: his ‘appointment, while impenitent 
and enemies to him—that the Jewith church was ‘effentially 
differentfrom the Chriftian, and therefore the believing Gen- : 
tiles were not graffed inta the fame church or olive-tree, from 
which the unbelieving Jews were broken off, as the apoftle re- 
prefents. Thefe are generally, if not univerfally, the fenti-_ 
ments of onr Baptift-brethren, which fhows, that the denial of 
infant-baptifm leads to thefe errors: But how contrary thefe 
ideas.are to the many plaimexprefs declarations of God’s word, 
is manifeft from what has been advanced on this fubje@. And 
thefe their ideas of the Abrahamic covenant, of the Hebrew | 
church and difpenfation, as being:merely external, ceremonial, — 
and temperal, naturally tends:to fink the Old Tefament in — 


* A Sermon by the Rev. Facoz Caruin. 


(8r) 
B show dangerous and hurtful thefe errors are, and of 
‘what pernicious effe&ts they would be produétive, if Ee be 


revalent ; the mott of you:are doubtlefs fenfible. pres 
lence of thefe fentiments would greatly tend to encourage 
he neglect of a religious obfervance of the fabbath, which is 
he principal means of maintaining the knowledge and prac- 
ce of religion among mankind, and which was'inftituted be- 
fore the fall of man. Since therefore a denial of infant-bap- 
‘tifim has atendency tolead into fuch hurtful errors, though 
oubtlefs many ofour Baptift brethren do not embrace all 
‘thee erroneous fentiments; it affords an additional reafon to 
onclude, that itis anerror. For the tendency of one error 
astolead into another-*, . ieaias. ‘y 
_ Another confequence, which will follow from the fentiments 
-of thofe, who deny infant-baptifm, is, that Chrift has had no 
vifible church in the world for upwards of 1000 years, fince 
“the commencement of the Chriftian difpenfation. They hold, 
“that infant-baptifm is no baptifm; and that without baptifm 
“there can be no vifible church of Chrift. Since therefore it 
is certain from hiftory, that infant-baptifm was practifed in all 
-Chriftian churches for more thana 1000 years; it follows, 
he ea 


_-* Since the publifbing of the firft edition, I am much more convin« 
ced of the hurtful tendency of the denial of infant baptifn, in the 
particular now mentioned. I find by obfervation and information, 
that thefe erroneous fentiments appear te be gaining ground among 
the Baptifis in our country, and are already confiderably prevalent. 
Many of them deny the fandity of the fabbath, or their obligation to 
abferve any part of time as holy; and are becoming neglectful of 
the Lord's day. Numbers of them reject the Old Teftament alta-~ 
gether, as being wholly. out of date, and no part of it now binding 
upon mankind. Hence many of them think’ very light of fabbath 
breaking, and oppofe all laws againf? this, as oppreffion, and an 
infringement upon the rights of confiience. From their difregard 
to the Old Teftament, they have embraced the fentiment both in theory 
and prattice, that it is of very little confequence whether civil magif- 
trates are fearers of God, and friends to his caufe, or are open infi- 
dels and irreligious characters. nd one of their preachers, in his 
nvritings lately publifhed, and in high repute among the Baptifts of 
 New-England, very plainly manifefis his preference of infidels to 
‘Teligious perfons for civil rulers.~ By their fentiments and prac- 
tice in thefe particulars, they are greatly injuring the caife of reli- 
gion, and emouraging wickedne/s and infidelity, 
~ *See Leland’s blow at root, and firoke at branch. © hag 


kL. 


® 


(B29 fie 


that Chrift had no vifible church | in, —e 
periods And if'there were no’ vifible’ 
were no vifibls minifters of Chrift.” “Whe 
promife-of our Saviour to his church ‘ane 
period, that the gates‘of hell thould gor 
that he would be with them'always unto th 
Gould this be fulfilled if there were "ho ’ 
churches of Chrift? Or. can we fuppo: fe, tha 
no vifible church‘in the'world for ‘fo le 
VY. In refle&ing upon the fabjedst 

hatdenidons naturally fuggelt the 

~ aft. ‘Since baptifim like Greumeifion i fez 
faith, endfoof the covenant of grace, 
can properly or acceptably cls 
ia this ordinance without ‘faith or 
have the faith of Abraham, in © : 
or children, in an acceptable: manner, 
coufnefs of faith. ‘When théréfore perf 
God’s covenant to their children oa 
tifm; and thus profels to affent to his: 
iteht 5 they are guilty of “a hypo: 
greatty profaiing this’ divine ‘a: ial fo sts 
2 profanation of ba tifm i is more ze 
thanfa blefiing. ° . > tae At aay “ 

‘adly. When parents ‘confecrate ‘Ye children to. 
papi, ‘they folernly bind themfelves to” ¢ end 

them wp for God’s fervice and to bring them 
and aciifonition of ey ete The whe 
ligated totake care, that their han : 
va ‘that the children have a Chri ‘ 
itraged im divine thirigs. When the 
sot careful to reftrain their tandee 
warn and inftru@ them in divine thin 
bring'therk up for God’; they violate 
and engagements. Their negleé&t br 
and Rig very cruel to their children, 
forever. mie 
Are not many of you, Ob ee very 

ty in’ this refpedt, that You are no mire’ ea 
amples, Warhings and ‘inftruions ‘to “tra bs 
for God accordiag 16 your folemn ‘engage 
confetrated them tO ‘him in baptifim ? Are 
ing thet ssid ‘ntere'ts 6 your" Saf 


toed © 


Lea Lada «te Ua ee a 
to think of being the means of deéftroying the immortai. 
als of your dear-offspring by your unfaithfulneis ? As there. - 
fore you-regard your own eternal good or that of your chit. 
dren, be-intreated faithfully to fulfil your folemn engagements. 
and obligations by carefully retraining them from finful cour- 
fes, eaiveiog them up in-the- nurture and admonition of 
AE = SES oe Pet ies BER. ¥i tit gee ales 
| The church alfo are-guilty of-a criminal neglect, when’ they 
do not take care, that parents are thus faithful, aad that. thé- 
‘children have a Chriftian education. ! Tr 
» godly. Since it appears: trom our fubjeé, that it is the duty. 
at ea apply the feal or token of. their faith to their 
ehildren, and thus publicly confecrate them to’ God, as did 
Abraham the father of all believers ;. it isevident: that this ig- 
an important tranfaction, anda proper performance of it is 
ufeful and beneficial, whether we are able to difcern the good 
effects of it er not. Suppofing. we could not be able to dift 
cern the particular benefits of) it, yet this would be no’ proof. 
that it was not beneficial. But we can fee, how it may be 
ufeful in feveral refpets both to parents and children.. In. 
this tranfadion parents renew covenant with God, -are res- 
minded of their obligations to give up all to him, of their pe- 
culiar obligations to train up their children for him, add ‘of. 
the need their children ftand in of divine grace or the wathing . 
of regeneration. It may be advantageous to children, as it- 
Jays their parents and the church under peculiar obligations: 
to fee, that they are brought up in the nurture and admonition. 
of the Lord. if hd 
_ An this refpe& we ean fee-the beneficial tendency of infant-- 
baptifm both to parents and children.- A a ile ; 
_An addition to this; God can add his peculiar blefing to 2 
proper ebfervance of this divine ordinance, as he generally 
does toya right obfervance of his‘ other pofitive inftitutions.- 
He can as:ealily addhis bleffing to the praétice of infant-bap-' 
tifm, and-render it beneficial, as he can to the obfervance off 
the Lord’s fupper;. public worthip, or any other divine ordi-- 
nance. For none of-thefe inftitutions will be of any benefit, 
unlefs attended with a divine blefing.. As there was much’ 
profit in cireumcifion, fo there is much reafon to conclude, that’ 
baptifm, which new flands in its ftead, is equally advanta- 
geous. Thofe therefore who deny or negle& the duty of pub-- 
licly confecrating their children to God in baptifm, cut cf 
themfelves and children from thefé benefits or bleflings. Ands 


+ 


Sem id 
; a3 ae . 
not only fo, but their neglect of this divir 
difpleafing to God and expofe them to 
VIL. "Before I conclude, I muft expr 
under the difagreeable neceflity of in 
fy into the pulpit at the prefenttime. A 
ral times of late, 1 had determined not to 
fubject at prefent, lef it fhould take os 
hearers, from concerns of greater importan I “te 
revival of religion, with which » God has 
us. But as the Baptifts have repeatedly ieee ¢ 
fubject among us, and have polieivees 
dence can be produced from padi ble in deveedl nfant-bap- 
tifm, and that thofe who join our churches have “no | 
but tradition, or the mere affertions of minifters 5 ued | 
peared to be duty to exhibit from feripture the evidence, on 
which we proceed ; that we might vindicate our practice 
from fuch unjuft afnetiinsbapiay fhow the falfehoo Of rere 
vain boafting affertions. And now Iam ready to appeal 
every one, of whatever denomination who heavenly 
tended to what has been fuggefted onthe fubjeét, whether 
fuch pofitive affertions and charges againft thofe,’who prac- 
tife infant-baptifm, are not unjuft ; and do not favor too much 
of a vain felf-confidence. white Stee? gal Dieta wena 
Finally, it behoveth us all to enquire, whether we have, by | 
a cordial faith been graffed 4 ‘into the good olive-tree, become 
interelted in the covenant of grace, and thus made partakers © : 
of the bleflings of Abraham. ‘Tt is by faith oniy, that we can 
have a real {tanding in this covenant and jin the church of © 
Chrift, be the feed of Abraham, “and heirs according to the 
promife.’? As God’s ancient people, were .“ becaufe of unbe- 
lief” broken off from their vifible flanding in this church, | and 
_ were deprived of all its privileges and bleflings ; we thould 
¢‘ be not high-minded, but fear.” « For if God spared pane’ . 
the natural branches,” he certainly will not {pare us, if my 
main impenitent. Without a cordial union to Chrift, -we & 
not be benefited by his atonement—for thofe who 
not, are condemned already. And unlefs be tie de it od. 
him by faith and love—are in him, as the » is in the 
vine ; we fhall be caft forth as withered branches, and be burnt: 
with unquenchable fire. . It is therefore. er 
to each one of us, that we be graffed into the: good  olive-tree; 
and become interefted in the covenant of grace : otherwife “er 
fhall be forever excluded from the glorious blelings of the N 
gofpel.—AAnd there will be “ weeping and gnathing of —— 


! 


3 


' Ce. tae 


when’ ye thal fee Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob, and all the pro- 
hetsin the kingdom of heaven, and you yourfelves thru: 

.” And thofe parefits, who are out of Chrift, or are neg- 

snt of divine things, are bringing ruin not only upon them- 

felves, but alfo upontheir dear children. They do not de- 

vote them to God in faith, neither dothey tainthem up for 


‘himin the ways of piety ; nor have ever once fincerely prayed 


‘God to have mercy upon them. On the contrary their*im- 
ae and oppofition to God, tend to draw 
down his difpleafure upon themfelves and families, and their 
evil examples and neglect of religion tend to lead their children 
with them ‘to deftruction. » 
. Are there not a great number of you, my hearers, who’ 


a 


_ are ftill out of Chrift and have notitle to the bleflings of the 


covenant of grace? Your ftateyO finners, is awfully wretched. 
You have nothing to fhelter you from the curfes of God’s 
holy law. You hang over she pit of duftru@ion by nothing 


but the flender thread of life, which is liableevery moment to . 


be cut afuader ; and unlefs you feon become reconciled to — 
God, and cordially embrace the Saviour, yet will be undone 
forever. The fituation of thofe ef you, who have remained 


’ earelefs during this revival of religion, or who, after being | 


| awakened, have gone back again to a ftate of ftupidity, is 


of impenitence, die in your 


dreadfully dangerous. There is reafon to fear, that the fpir- 
it of God is about to depart from us in its awakening influen-* 


ces and many of you appear by your conduét, as if you 


wifhed to provoke him to leave you. But what will become 
of you, fhould the fpirit of God depart frem you? If left to 
yourfelves, you will certainly go on in your fins, treafuyng up 
wrath againft the day of wrath. How wicked and dangerous 
then to do any thing, which will tend to quench the ftrivings 
of the holy fpirit, or to provoke him to leave you? Should 
this revival now ceafe,and fhould there be no more awaken- 
ngs for 50 years to come, than there have been for 50 years 
pait ;\ would not the greater part of you, who are in a ftate 

a, and go down to deftruction 2 
The thought isvery tremendous. However light any of you 
may make of thefe things; yet your Chriftian friends are 
trembling for yourimmortal fouls. Have not you therefore 
much ‘greater reafon to feat and tremBle for yourfelves ? You 
have been favored with a peculiar feafon—fuch a feafon, as 
but few generations are favored with. God has come down 
among you by the influences of his holy {pirit—has awaken- 
ed the attention of numbers, who, we hope, have fet forward. 


a 


¢ 


é j aie Y ime 
(36)! MY i 
téwards héavén, and danuileie he hast | 


of your hearts, Butyou have neglected hi 
ftrivings of his {pirit, and now God fe partin 

you. Therefore there is. great danger, that ek will be ef: 
£0 go onin your rea brin inggpben yourfelves an aggra- 
vated condemnation. For fhould. you perifh, all: thefe calls: 
and warnings will rife up in judgement againft you, and will; 
greatly increafe your guilt and mifery.. Forto whom much: 
is given, of them much will be required. God may juftly fay 
to you, “ Becaufe I have called, and ye have refufed—have: 
fet at nought all my counfels, and would none,of my re= 
proof: I alfo will lavgh at your calamity, Iwill mock when. 
your fearcometh.” ‘Then fhall they eall upon: me, but I 
will not anfwer ; they fhall fedgme early, but they fhall. not: 
find me” How will itaggravate your mifery, thould you 
neglect and fall fhort,. to remember what opportunities you 
have milimproved ; and to confider, how your aequaiatance 
and companions engaged i in religion, and fecured immortal? 
glory and felicity » while you neglegted your eternal concerns: 
for the vain tranfitory pleafures, poffeffions, and’ enjoyments of 
this world ?- How cutting will be the reflection, that for thefe 
momentary enjoyments, you loft the endlefs joys. of heaven, 
and plunged into remedilefs woe ? Will not the Sree “a 
your! folly add greatly to your wretchednefes ?, Why then wil 

you not be perfuaded in this your day to make your peace wi 
God, to engage in religion? For “ Nap TREE are ways | 
pleafantnefs and all her paths ate peace.” d 0p» 
an unfailing fource of comfort and fu: Be 

and troubles of life, will fupport in pg of dea beste 
everlafting felicity beyond the grave. AMEMNG. si-ayiearna al 


t 


wr 


¥ at r Resa: 
afc e IPT ry S03 
"CAN APPENDIX, 
wir . ) ; 
win’ 7 ad _ CONTAINING 4 


et vidé\ oem bi & 
“LETTER TO THE AUTHOR, 
Sewing -that ‘se one particular MODE of applying. waters 
ta the exclufion of all others, is ESSENTIAL to the 

_ VALIDITY of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


‘Rey. Sir, 
RECEIVED a note from you, requefting me to fend you 
. my thoughts, on the mode of Baptifm, that they may be 
publithed, as an appendix te your fermons. Icomply. But 
fo much has been already written on this fubjeé, that I cone 
ceive you will not wifh me to do more than is neceflary to a 
brief view of the matter propofed. ~ ; : q 
I conceive it very important to afcertain the proper fub- 
je&s of this ordinance. But to me it appears, that the mode 
of applying water in baptifm, though not altogether indiffer- 
ent, is of lefs confequence ; and that neither iprinkling, nor 
immerfion, is exclufively effential to the validity. of the ord& 
nance. I fhould therefore confider it unnecefiary to publifh 
any thing on the fubje¢t, were it not, that there are Chriftians, 
who not only conceive that the mode is effential ; but who 
refufe communion with, and virtually excommunicate the 
greatelt part of the church of Chrift, not only on account of the 
fubjeéts of baptifm, but alfo of the mode in which they have 
been baptized ; and hold it effential to the validity of the or-. 
dinance, that it be adminiftered by a total immerfion of the. 
body. It therefore becomes neceflary to examine the fubjec. 


(88): 
For it thuft be wrong to do all this, on 
by the word of God. My defign is to fhow the holy 
{criptures, that Jmmerfion is not meceffary to the Validity of 
Criftian Baptifm. . i i ; y, 
I. I begin by making fome obfervations on the meanin 
of the Greek word’ Baptizé, from@which the word Baptijin's 
derived, as it is ufed by Chrift and his apoftles. It is of little 
confequence to enquire how this word has been ufed by wri- 
ters in other ages. It is fufficient, if we can find how it is 
always ufedin the New-Teftament. This word is ufed, in its fe- 
veral variations, in the New-Teftament, not only forthe ordinance 
of Ckriftian baptifm, but for other ceremonial and ‘religious 
wafhings.* ‘Let us examine “whether, in fuch ‘cafes, it de- 
notes immerfion. . This may help to fix its meaning, when 
applied to the Chriftan ordinance. This word is ufed for the 
out-peuring of the~ Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecoft. 
« John truly baptized with water; but ye fhall be ch took 


with the Holy Ghoft, not many days hence.”? Which toc 
place at the time new mentioned, according to this ‘predict 
and according to the prophecy of Joel, And it thall come 
to pafs in the laft days, (faith God) I will pour out my ‘Spirit 
upon all fiefh.” The fame word is again ufed in thé fame 
fenfe by Peter, in reference to the defcent of the Holy Ghoft 
on the affembly at the houfe of Cornelius. “ Then -remem- 
bered I the word of the Lord, how hefaid, John indeed bap- 
tized with water; but ye fhall be baptized with the Hol 
Ghoft.”} On a careful examination, I cannot find: 2 fingle 
inftance, except where the ordinance. in queftion is refpected, 
in which immerfion is clearly. denoted by the word: but 
whenever it refpeéts the ufe of water, it pebaieatl fignifies 
fpriakling, or affufion,andin fome inftantes this is unquef-- 
tionable. I will mention feveral inftances. This word is 
twice ufed in one verfe. ‘And when. they come from the 
market, except they wafh,|| (baptize) they eatnot. And ma- 
ny other things there be, which they have received to hold, 
as the wathings§ (bapti/ms) of cups and pots, brazen veffels 
and tables.” Here the word denotes pouring on Water, 


oi eran > as seh : 

* Icannot find that Baptizo is ever ufed in the Greek Tefia- 

ment to denote any Wafhings, but fuch as were efiecmed of a relia 

gious nature. All ether wafhings are expreffed 2) Wipts Lous, or fi 
fome other viord ; but never by Baptizi. need am 

+ Baptifthefefite, A&si.5. .  . PAGSH. 16. 

|| Baptifontai.  "& Baptifaious, Mark ‘vii'§. 


(89) 

which was the cuftom in which the Jews wafhed their hands, 

Elitha poured water on the hands of Elijah. ‘And howe- 

i a they might wath their cups and pots, their tables were too 
large to be conveniently wathed in any other way, and pro- 
bably thefe wathings were a kind of imitation of the purifi- 

gation of the veffels of the fanétuary, which was done by 
Gprinkling.* The fame word is ufed in the fame manner, 
where it is faid that the Pharifee marvelled, that Jefus had not 
firlt wafhed (baptized)+ before meat, which the Pharifees 


_confidered as a religious rite. 


The apoftle, in his epiftle to the Hebrews, exprefsly calls 
the Mofaic fprinklings baptifins, where he fays, that that ritu- 
al “ ftood only in meats, and drinks, and diverfe wafhings 
(baptifns.” )— Which he illuftrates, by inftancing the blood 
of bulls, and goats, and the afhes ofan heifer, fprinkling the 
unclean—and the blood of calves, and goats, with water, with 
which Mofes fprinkled the book, and all the people, and likee 
wife his fprinkling with blood the tabernacle, and all the vef- 
fels of the miniftry. Since therefore the word tranflated bap- 
tize, as ufed in the New-Teftament, ufually, and for onght I 
can difcover, always denotes fprinkling or affufion, when it 
relates to the ufe of water,and does not refpect the Chriftian 
ordinance, it is evident that when it is ufed for this ordinance 
it does not wecefarily denote immerfion; but may import 
fprinkling or pouring on. And here itis proper to obferve — 
further, that the Greek word Bapté, which properly fignifies 
to dip, and is fo ufed in the New-Teftament,|| and is the only 


- word that is fo tranflated in it, is always avoided, when Chrif- 


tian baptilm is intended. ~ t 

II. Another argument againft the neceffity of immerfion, 
in the adminiftration of this ordinance, arifes from the con- 
fideration, that there is neither precept, nor example for it, in 
‘the New-Teftament. Thefe have been diligently fought for, 
by the advocates for immerfion,. and with great propriety ; 
for if thefe cannot be found, it muft be abundantly evident 


* Levit. viii. 11. + Ebaptifihe, Luke xi. 38. 
+ Baptifmois, Heb. ix. 10, &c. 
ff} John xiii. 26. and Rev. xix. 13. Jf Baprizé neceffarily 
Hgrified To DIP, it would fellow, that when the Fews come from 
market, ** except they dip, or are immzrfed in water, they eat not 3” 
and that the Pharifee marvelled that Fefus had not firft dipped 
bimfelf in water before meat. But no one fuppofes thet in thefe 
inflances the ward has this fignification. P 


M 


Leen 


_fronrthis)fingle confideration »alone, th th 
ly deferibed every circumftance relat 
nies, and has in this cafe given no, pa 
mode the water fhould be applied mn 
der i it effzntial to the validity of the o 
tions would haye been abfolute Ny : 
‘effential... Tt has however, been urged, tha 
fays, Heb.:x. 22. ought -to be confic 
ofa precept. .“* Let us draw a 
ep of faith, having ‘our b ties aw d 
Lf this text refpefed the ordinar 
jie necefarily imply immerfion 3 for bod 
tprinkling. and: putting water on ' 
farily imply, that the whole. body. 
whenia certain woman poured” ointment on t 


‘our Lord, he faid that {he came toa nel 

when he wafhed his difciples’ feet, : 
red not only to have. his feet wa 
his head, * ‘He that is-wathed, nee ieth ‘not, 
feet, but is clean every ‘whit.”’t ut th 
our hearts fprinkled from an_ evil pra nce, a 

wafhed-with pure water,” have no re t to the 
baptifm. ‘The apoftle was’ not trea 
on fanétification : and the obvious m 
_ tion -both of the inner and the outward 
~ and the condudt. © And it,will net b 

is any other dire@ precept for inmmerfi 


And as to examples, John, the Baptl 
firft recorded i in the New tare 


4 Baptizd i in its freral. terminatio 
original, when baptifm is intended. | 
ted wathed,,és leloumenoi, , from 1006 nd 
Mean, baptized. 

++ Matth, iii, 16. rey a 

§ The word Bapttt in the origindh és Bapti Sandi 
inmedidtely, nat from Baptd to dip ; but from 
and therefore does not /ignify a Dipper as” 
bat a Baptizer. Those who fay, it Sgnifies a appeal 
old Dutch trapflation of the pajage. But ow : 
hon of the 'Greck original, na iranflation ca be a ne 
authority —But as the word Bapii a es 
the table Beptif, J bavein this. letter 


uferg J2, 


(or) 


itis no where told us, what mode he ufed.» This’ is” not pre-! 
vended. ‘It is only faid, that from a number of /exprefiions, it 
highly probable, thatit was immerfion. Let thefe- expref= 
lons.and circumftances be examined. ee 96 op 
‘We areinformed, that “ when Jefus was baptized, he came 
ont of] the water’* “Bur the word tranflated out off is: 
ten tranflated from, and might have been juitly fo rendered 
wi this paffage ; and therefore does not prove, that he 1a. muchy 
fepped his feet into the water; much leis that his whole 
body was buried in it. tel 1. te ft 
» Belides : Chrift was an high-prieft. And according to the 
Mofaic law, the priefts were to enter on their office at thirty 
years of age ;* and were to be confecrated to it, by, being 
wafhed with water. And a brazen laver was made, and wa- 
ter put into it, for them to wath their hands and their feets. 
which is the only wathing, that is particularized of thems 
Chrift therefore waited until all the people were baptized, t 
that he might attain the proper age, and was then immedi+ 
ately baptized, not like others, for the remiflion of fins, for he 
had none ; but as a confecration to his office. And this is 
the more evident, becaufeit was not until that time, that he 
entered upon his public miniltry, which theuceforth he ’ profe- 
cuted thro’ life. And inftead of being anointed with oil, as 
ether priefts were, he was publicly anointed with the Holy 
Ghoft. Itis therefore at leaft as reafonable to believe, that 
only his hands and.fect were wathed, as that he was totally 
immerfed. His baptifm was doubtlefs fo far according to 
law, as to fulfil all righteoufnefs in his confecration to the 
priefts’ office. Befides, the baptifm of Chrift, being a confe- 
eration io the priefthood, can be no certain example tor us, ref- 
petting either the age or manner of baptifm, unlefs we allo 
id enter upon the fame office. » hak ig tal 
_ The only reafon that can be affigned from the fcriptures, 
why John baptized inf: (or as it might be as. correctly tranf- 
" : wire 


By | 
] 


. 


| Matth, iii. 16. Apo here tranflated out of, is tranflaied 
from Rev. xviii. 14. And the fruits that thy foul lufieth afters 
are departed (apa) from thee, and all the things which were dain ° 
ty and goodly are departed (apo) from thee. 

© ® Exod. xxix. 4. and xxx. 18. J. Luke iti, 21. ; 

_ Marth. iii. 6. En here tranflated in, is ofien tranflated at. 
John ii. 23. Now when he was at Ferufalem (en) atthe paffo- 
ver. Alfa Johniv. 45. All the things that ke did (en) at Feru- 
falem, (en) at the feaft. | #9) 


: / hak ee . Bh , en et ; the € v 
asat dergialem, and the’ populous pats a Samana 
efore convenient for multitudes to attend on his minift 


eaufe there was much water theres | 


~ we could not be warranted in aferete 
_ ther reafon ; nor that this was hismode. Ar 


that wa 
well fupplied with water. It was neceflary for the refrefh 
ment of his hearers, & the bea(ts on which they‘rode, with dri 
_ and other provifions ; for in thofe warm countries efpecially 
the places well watered are ufually mof produétive of food 
for both man and beaft. His chefing that place therefore, iz 
a country where water is exceedingly fcarce, as this pes 
proves it was, is of little weight, to furnith a conclufion which 
involves the validity of a Chriftian ordinance, that is no wher 
faid to depend on the mode of applying water. I cannot fe 
that there is any evidence, that John adminiftered baptifm | 
immerfion. MT iii iro i 0 eyo 
Bat it is again cited, in proof of immerfion, that Philip and 
the eunuch went down both izto the water, and came up cut 
the water, when the latter was baptized.* ‘The words tra 
lated into, and out of, might bave been as corredtly tranflatec 
to, and from, which is fuflicient to fhow, that they afford n 
evidence that he was immerfed. And the circumftances 
the cafe were fuch, that it was neceflary that they thould g 
_ down Zo, and come up from the water, in order that baptifi 
might be adminiftered inany mode and they then go the 
way; and this is all that the » words prove that t 


.  * Aas, viii. 38. The words here tranflated into and ont 
are eis andek. Lis is often rendered to. 80 Chrift diretted Pe. 
ter, Matt. xvii, 27. to ge (cis) to the fea, and caff an hook, 
And ek is tranflated frous, Luke xi. 13.—She (the queen of th 
South) came (ek) from the uimoft parts of the earth, Sc. — 


plied the* ter tothe { Soy 
m if the words renderéd into and out of, sate. buried - = 


in the water, tho” they éxprefs no fuch’ things then beth mufP)- M 


we been buried ; for certainly, according to. the text, both - 
_ went down alike into, and came up out ofthe waters” 

Ido not know of any other examples; thateour Baptit “i. 
_ brethren bring to prove the neceflity ‘ofa “total immerfion in ~*~ 
baptifm ; unlefs perhaps the inftance of Lydia,’ who was by? 
’ the fide.of a river when fhe believed. But whether the was =~ 


* What has been already faid, foows that there is no evidence, 

that Fobn baptized by immerfion ; but fince our brethren infift 

much on his baptifm, and profefs to fellow him in their mode, it may 
be well enough to enquire what Fobn’s baptifm was ; for ifit was ‘ 
not the prefent Chriftian ordinance, it would not be Sufficient to eftah- 
lith the made for us, even though his mode could be made clearly 
manifefie 

a. Fobn’s baptifin was not an ancient Fewilh rite; for there 
is no fuch inflitution to be fen in the Mofaic ritual. Nor did the 
chief priefis and Levites know of any fuch rite, for if they had they 
avould not have afked bim, as they did why he baptized, if he were 

neither the Chriff, nor Elias, nor yet that prophet. And when 
Chrift afked them of the baptifim of John, whence it wasy had there. 
been fuch an inftitution in their ritual, they would not have willing- 
ly betrayed their ignorance, by anfwering, we cannot tell. 


+ "hs ' 
\ - 5 
« - 
, therelis nothing "> 
bape "8s. 


“ 


) flanding what has been faid to evade the natural meaning of the 
 facred biftoriaa, itappears from the fir part of the xix. chap. of — 


n the. aayiels 
dl oly afte? dic’ é 

¥ nits refurredtion, that “aa ecord, 
; IN ss Oe gh 
t ver Nor sna Soba Re “baptifin Chripiiam aptifim’ 3 for lenthicbn] | 


: ¢ Aas, that Fobn did nat baptize as the apoftles did. We are 
there informed, that Paul, finding certain difciples at Ephefis, ens” 
quired whether they had received the Holy Ghaft, jince they believed. — 
«And they faid unto him, we bave not fo much as heard avbether 
there be any Holy Ghofte? Paul anfwered as if amazed. Biba 
baptized ?. and not heard whether there be any Holy Gholt ? Una’ 
to fa suhat then were ye baptized 2 And they faid unto Fobn’s bape * 
tifmn.”? a? The matter was now cleared up, aud Paul proceeded te: 
oiferve, “* Fabn verily baptized with the baptifin of repentancey 
[aying unto the people, that they fhould believe on him that Soould” “ 
come after him, that is, on Ubrift. Fefus. When they heard thisy ‘i 
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Fefus”? The thot 
uatural confiruction of thefe words imports, that when Paul had — 
faid this, and cnlightened them into the knowledge of, Cine: ‘they 
avere, baptized according to his inftitution. . 
Befides': Chrift fpeaks of Fohn as not belonging to the Obriftian — 
difpenfation, avbenhe fays that * The leaft in the kingdom of hea~ 
ven is greater than he.” And Fohn fays much the fame of nage ol 
*< He muf? increafe 3 but I muft decreafe.’ That is, His 
penfation muft incre. es mine decreafe, which could not have eae 
true if John was a Chr iftian minifter. And the confideration, that 
Fobn did no miracles, is another evidence that his was not the 
Ci iwiftian difpenfiation, which like that of Mo, ‘ie required t to be intron 
duced eith the feal of miracles. 
Thofe who contend that Fobn was a minifier of the Chriftian 
difpenfation, endeavour to fupport this pare fr ae what is faid in’ 
the firft chapter of Mark, which begins with t hefe words, “ The be- 
ginning of the gofpal of Fefus Chrift the Son of God,” and immedi~ 
vately meptions the miniffry of Fobn. From this they would infer, that 
hz belonged to the Chriftian difpenfation. But a little attention a 
ferue to difeover, that thefe words are given; like a title p “had 
“exprefs the general fubjels of the book. And the little that ; 
concerning John, was. necefary tofhow the fulfilment of the (rip. 
tures, concerning the fore-runner of Chri iff, and to give an ‘intel. 
ligshle account of our Lord’s. baptifin, whofe hiffory the evangelif? 
dad nowfet dorwn'torwrite, and therefore does not fuggeft theiden, that 


| ‘i 1" : f 95) ¥ 
ford the.leaft degree of probability that a aerate: 
he 


*, 


tife d and fome of them were fo.circumftanced, that it is dif: 
ficult to conceive how it was pollible, that it fhould be. Thi 


fi iLinitance was on the day of Pentecoft.. At nine o’clock in 


eo belonged te the new, difpenfation. To prove that Fokn was 
& Chriftian minifter, and that therefore his baptifn awas Chriftian 
baptifm,.a pafjage is cited in Luke xvi. 16. “ The law and the 
“prophets were until Fabn 3 fince that time the kingdom of heaven’ 
os preached, and every man preffeth ints it.’ But this does not 


@Prowe, that .at that time, the old difpenfation gave way to the new 3. 


fur it is certain that Fahn obeyed the old ritual, and that our Lord 
Bimfelf, to the day of bis crucifixion, confidered it in full force, and 
“seonformed to. it, But the natural import of the pafage appears ta 
| be this, Fohn wwods a more clear inftrudtive preacher, than any who 


 @6fin [bis agrees with what is faid in the 28th verfe of the vit. 
ehapter of this evangelift. “ For I fay unto you, among thofe that 
are born of women, there is nota greater than Fobn the. Baptif : 
but be that is leaft in the kingdom of God is greater than he?* 
Mr. Caloin,.and Mr. Pool’s continuators, confidered this paffage 
as, meaning, “that among all the prophets of the Old Teftament, 
God raifed up none greater than Fobn ; but that the leaft of thofe 
that fhould preach the gofpel after Chrif’s refurrection, fhould in 
their doétrine be greater than he? This fhows that Fohn did not 
belong ta the new difpenfation, which is here called, byway of fu- 
_ perior eminence, the kingdom of God.~-Dr. Gill, an European Bap- 
tft writer, argues that “fobu’s baptifm was the Chriftian baptifn, 
> becaufehe required of fuch as be baptized repentance for the re- 
_ miffion of fins, as the terms, of their admiffion to it, and that they 
_fhould believe on hing that Should come afler him, that is, on Chriff ; 
43 the apofiles required repentance and faith of thofe whom they 
baptized. Doubtlefs Fohn preached true fpiritual religion ; and fo 
. did Mafes and the prophets. They preached repentance and remif- 
_ Shon of fins. And Mofes required that the people /hould believe oz 
_ Chrifi—the prophet whom God would raife up unto them from 


_ Abraham. Repentance and remiffion of fins, were alfo fignifed by 
the Mofaic [prinklings, and purificatious, and Chrift was fhadow- 
. ed out by every facrifice. And the Fews were required to attend 
_. them, with fuch fpiritual exercifes, as the terms of their acceptance, 

avith God. Therefore thefe Mofaic fprinklings, which the apoftle calls 
. baptifius, may as well be called Chriftian baptifin as Fobn’s, as be 
required na, more of thofe whom ke admitted, than Mofés did jwrthe 


auent beforehin 3 and his minifiry was attended with unufual fuce 


_ among their brethren... And the fame gofpel was preached unto” 


+ 


- noaccount that they were ; and becaufe it is 


~ the temple, if they were fuitable for the iiniienigetead | 


_ Leds anfwer implies, that it was to olay 
ving of one far greater than bimfelf. 


. fous. And when they Sound the defi ee gsi mw 


_ thesway, Shows that on both fides it was 


» nor that prophet ; but the voice of one inti 


- coming after me, is pegereen before me, whofe | 
_ not worthy to unloofe.” - The Jews expelted | the 


the verve apoftles were .preachin , and fe 
Jews were hearing with folemnity, and | 
mutt probably have taken up the time 
‘yet, after this, three thoufand made pt of 
and were baptized. —This was at the rate of n 
perfons toa minute, during the whole afternoo 
ficult to believe that all thefe were immerfed, 


ceive how they could find water for this mode. Th x 2 
obtained on this feaft of the Jews : they bot poe by t 


1A Fy sete Sink Sa mv) ee g 
covenant that he faded to the people. It remain 
evident, notwithftanding all thefe objections, that Fob did wea : 
minifier the Chriftian baptifm © = eaten me y f 


3. The baptifin of John was a vite peculiar to 
cafion, and deft efigned to purify the people for the coming of th 
This is agreeable to the account that Fohn gave of bi. 


pricfis and levites, who were fent to afk him, who. he e was 
it. 19, &5c. Hetold them that he was not the Chrift, ne 


Straight the way of the Lord. They then 
there flanieth one among you, whom ye 3 gt 5 awh: 


ed no miracles to prove that he was coming + eae ee 
that it was fuitable that his way fhould be prepares a 
purification of the people. They were accuftomed to p 
their religious occafions, and fpecial gy as 
pentecof?, the day of atonement, at t. ee-wil 

ike people were fanétified « at Sinai, and on tug 


pare the people for the coming. of Chrifi, ne 
it was fatisfadtory. Though indeed there 
fome of John’s difciples and the Jews, abo 


rite, and not a gofpel feal. In this view the. 
his baptifm appear'to be an exaéi accomplifbme 


avas forecald of him by the prophets Efdias and Malachi. 
and Malachi,iv. 5. And thisis the account that degieny of it 
felf. On the whole, it appearsthat his baptifin was not an pes 
Fewifh rite, nor the gofpel baptifm, but a matter init to th 


ext aordinary occafie ot. 


ee. (&97)) 
ar fis, pA hefideas the priéits would have *heen‘litrle difpo- 


.d to have ent them to the a es, to be put to what they 
“wor d have confidered an unballowed ufe, in honor of one 
wv tiey had jut executed as ablafphemer. And it is equal- 


xhom 1 
‘Vy dificult to conceive, how fo many. could .have.been im- 
Meried with decency, in fo fhort a time, if each of the eleven 
“apoitles had left the bufinefs of preaching, and inftruétion, and 
could have found a convenient place of water; and fuitable 
aanges of raiment could have been obtained. The account 
| apparently inconfiftent with this mode.—Befides, we never, 
7 er the afcenfion of Chrift, read of any difficulty in obtaining 
‘water for the purpofe of bapti{m, or of going out to any bath, 
ftream or fountain ; but the natural import of the accounts 
_are, that whenever people believed, and. profeffled, their belief, 
“they were baptized; whether at Jerufalem, or at the houfe of 
Cornelius, of Judas or of the jailor. And in the inftances lak 
“mentioned, it appears very improbabk, that immerfion was 
practifed. Ip the inftance at the houfé of Cornelius, Peter 
-daid, “ Can any man forbid water, that thefe fhould not be 
_baptized.”* = This manner of expreffion fuggefts, rather the 
_ bringing water for baptizing them inthe houfe, than their go- 
3 ng abroad to fome river or fountain for the, purpéfe. .And 
“the inftance of Saul’s baptifm, at the houfe of. Judas, is fiiil 
‘more inconfiftent with the fuppofition that he, was immerfed. 
,As foon as Ananias addrefled him, “ Immediately there teil 
_ from his eyes, as it had been feales, and he reccived fight forth- 
“ with, and arofe,” all weak as he was with his diflrefS of : mind, 
wed fafting three days, “« and was baptized, and when he had 
_ ¥eceived meat, he was ftrengthened.”} And. when, the _jailor 
"was baptized, it was midnight, and Paul and Silas were fore 
with the firipes which they had received fromthe’ magittraies 
yof Philippi; and yet, at this hour, and/in this condition, he 
took Paul and Silas, and wathed their Rripes, and. was hapti- 
_ zed, he and ell his ftraightway.+ And the anfwer given te 
_ the fergeants, and fent to the magifirates the next day, thows 
4 that they had not departed from the prifon, for there’ would 
shave been no propriety in fending to them, to fetch themvoxt 
| of prifon, if they could have replied, You have once been out 
\ and returned voluntarily again. , 

ry _ If now we examine all the exampies of baptifm recorded in 
_ the New-Teltament, we can find none inconfiftent with fprink- 
“ing, but many, that certainly appear inconGftent with immer- 


i , 
wry t ¥ ‘ . 

i Ads, x..47- 4 ARs, ix. 18. t As, xvi. a5, &e 
; N 

jew 


fons aia the Tea that can bers fons 


~ordinary that our brethren fhould, with 
~ that immerfionis exprefsly pointed out: 
‘cite pailages forproof, in which neither 


. judging, for baptifnr ts tigi a” 


- which our brethren. frequently urge, . 


_ kegnified by -baptifm ; and this is verou shit, 


“ ter upon you, dnd ye ‘fhall be’ 


— 


_® Jock 28.8 > f Ezeks xxevilags of 


‘ration, which is made without hands, and co 


there is greater reafon to believe that hea 0 
fprinkling, than immerfion. Is i th 


cumftanee which neceflarily determines | 
III. If wetweré to judge of the mo 
things fignified by it’; which indeed 


Spirit’s operation, but’ the ‘€ 
merfion isehe only valid mode, Ree 


fion of tlie fubje@s of it mto. the ; Ghe t, but is e 
by pouring if ouf upon them. “And hence God fay 
pour out my! Spirit upon all flefi?”"*" Bajptiim fig 
fication. Aind tlreréfore God faye,°T will “fpriu 
ani °° Te ti 
pardon and jufification; which’ fe apoMle 
fprinkling of the blood of Chvilt.”"j > Tiris 
eumcifion, fignifies death unto ae? And b 
the faintsy & Arte citcumciléd with the cifew 
out hands; in’ putting off the pea ie ; 
the ciréumeifion’of Chit? buried with’ 
So that, even in this arbitrary and thicertain y 
ing the mode, {prin'sling and pouting afe at lealt "as 
indicatedy #¢ tntimeriton, |) 7°) PTE eS Ete ie 
‘IV.°Phat irmerficn is not the enly valid of! adn 


Laan ve 


§ Col it r2. (Ciréuncifion is roy oy mblema 
than Spriakling is, and both evidently, Ia this 


body of the fins of the fell, arid being gitickened andr 
faith of the operation of God, ta newnels of li 1 Cver 
rofe from the dead, with a Jpiritual body. \ An 19 

ently fuppofe that circumcifion or baptifmn is here 
they belicvz that thefe external rites are regencrate 
therefore regeneration is the barial bere intended. ‘~ 
Sucprfition that baprifin is inftituted to ‘commemoral the 
Chrift, it will fallow, that it has precifely the fame és 
the Lord's Supper ; and there is no ordinance left to 
aiort of the Spiirty hich is conirary bath to the tenor 
bub:s, and alfais the writings of ote Laptift brethren en this fubject. 


_ £99} 

 Mering this ordinance, fince it isno where enjoined, or eves 
' mentioned in the fcriptures, may with propriety be argued 

_ from the inconveniency of it. _ Were there a pofitive com- 

_ mand refpecting the mode, as there wis refpecting all the cir- 

- eumftances of the ancient Jewifh rites, no argument concern- 
ing its inconvenience would have any weight ; but, where the . 
"mode is undetermined in the fcriptures, and believers in what- 

“ever country, feafon, and flate of health, are the fubjedts of it, 

by exprefs command, this argument. appears to me reafonable, 

- weighty, and conclufive. _Immerfion is on all occa ions in- 
_ onvenient, and sefpecially in cold feafons, in our northern 

“countries, It is impoflible in cafes of ficknefs, and. on many 
ether occafions highly dangerous, And in fome countries 

“and feafons it would be to ail the fubjects of it, a greater duf- 
_ fering, than‘circumcifion was to the Jews. We haye there- 
'’ fore no right to conclude, without fome evidence, that, Chrilt, 
~ who inftituted baptiim for all believers, in whatever circum- 
“ ftances, intended that it fhould be'adminiftered by immerfion, 
much lef that he limited it to this mode. Agufion or fprink- 
ling, and that only, can be adminiftered in every cafe, and at 
_ all ifeafons, where this Ordinance is directed. Pee. 

_. V. Itis alfo. an objection of fome weight againft immer- 
© fion, that it is found too inconvenient to be generally admintf- 
. tered in the fanctuary, where all the ordinances of Chrift ought 

+ tobe ordinarily attended. Iam aware that it will be faid, 
_ that we have no account, that the apoftles ever baptized in 

any houfe defigned for public worfhip, But a fufficient rea- 
~ fon may be aflizned; they had none : and fo baptized in pri- 

_~ vate houfes, and in the open air, as occafions required. In 
“the fame manner, Noah, Abraham, and the ancient Patriarchs 
© offered to God acceptable facrifices, wherever it was conye- 
 nient, and the Jews were directed to eat the paflover at’ their 
~ own houfes, until a fanciuary was built. But when this was— 

‘built, God expretsly commanded, that no facrifice fhould be 
offered, but at the fanctuary, and no paffover eaten, but at Jes 
. rufalem, the holy city. And. all Hrael, on fuch occafions, 
” were required to go up with their facrifices to that one place. 
Circumeifion, (doubtlefs becaufe. it was impoflible *o bring 

» their feeble babe from all parts to the temple) was the only or- 

dinance, that they were permitted to attend in their own hou- 

» fes. This I conceive is a fufficient indication, that it is the 

_ will of God, that in ordinary cafes, where the church can 

‘have the privilege of a fanétuary, his ordinances fhould be at- 
tended in his houfe : and therefore no mode of baptifm ought 
to be uled, which is too inconvenient to be commonly . admins 


Age i 


aanle nx 


ere See: “Pinta ne evid 

, and iw corroborated ie he 
tail feal of the covenant'o 'grac 64 
is hens a a pic to be ee as C 


bt Pres ‘aiid die fea ; pees 
"the fea, nor the. trees, till we have Es 
“God in tHeir foreheads.””§ 
us Sir, I have papers that the word tra 
“when the ordinance in quel i ot 

"dedly means immetfion es 1 


~‘Mofaic fprinklings ‘bay rack ee, tt 
\ precept or example for immerfion, b 
, appear inconfiftent with it—that if we “were 
‘mode of’ baptifm, by the things Sgaite 
not decide in~ favor of immerfi 
‘adminiftered to all believers, i in ail ¢ c 
_direétions concerning, baptifm e expr 
*found too inconvenient to be ufually, at 5 
; ‘God; where all his ordinances ought to ‘be 
“iftered. “In Was this, ‘Lhave p gee 


rie ea pet a I do ‘not pe 
validity ; ; butam ‘perfuaded that any Dickey 
"water to the body, in the name of the Faber, 
“and of the Holy Ghoft, is valid. And 
there are any Chriftians, and Chriftian ch 
“teem many of our baptifts brethrep to be, 
withdraw communion from, and virte y exc comm 
mitay of the Churches, whom Chrift evi a owns, 
_ pouring ¢ of his s age upon. then), 


« 


a fe. iy phere sr eh 
0 TH, 


“97 aim aware, that fame Baptift nine’ have 
~ fiz in their hoxfes of public roorfbip 5 but ee ucts foo ine 
venient for general pratice. © Rev, Dd 2, & 


Wet:5 Britain, January I> Boor a 


a» 


_ 


eee 


~ 
= 


esnips 
PN 


i OF 


yeaa 
SV 


4 


. ; TMNT 
A A 


- 
ays 
‘ere 6 ee ee ‘ a WW ASAM. 
i ; : 
v 3 
Oe te 
PE sorte 
fi, ¥ uJ 4 
? ig. 4% 
408 wy Shae = Mes nna. duien 
wi ‘Peds mad Cm ib nore B oe, 2 lye 
19% rapa | riigeg | me peri fy 
ban jhe We eae wry. ta | 
igtidet Bash SRE be Har 
3 chord Mie we he. bape pete 
7 ares wees 0) Aes 
" were } Fe 


¥ wey Ma Te ek ee es, 
: pr wire pe rege pg Sit Ded 


2 Ae she dao tell hc Lai ~ NAS He 


( hadi ts 
sts as 
ee Reh ' 
- 
ao 
< ‘ oe 
~ 2" ad 
s * ; 
: ¥ 
- ¢ - Var "43 


A Ne. 
SUMMARY VIEW 


GOD’s GRACIOUS COVENANT 


WITH 
ABRAHAM anv HIS SEED ;— 
OF THE 
RIGHT anp DESIGN 
OF THE 


BAPTISM oF INFANTS ;— 


AND OF THE 


MODE or BAPTISM. 


: In Four 


DISCOURSES. 


PRILI SLI SL OLISISS SSIS LDS ISS ISLIS ISLES IL DESL LLIN, 


BY CALEB fF. TENNEY, A. M. 


Pastor OF THE First ConcrEGATIONAL Cuurcn, Newrory. 


} 
1 


The Lord appeared to Abraham, and faid unto him; I am the Almighty God ; 

‘walk before me, and be thou perfe&. And 1 will eftablifh my Covenant between 
eand thee and thy feed after thee, in their generations, for an evetlaiting Cove- 

nant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy feed after thee. And in thy feed, fhall all 

the nations of the earth be bléefied. 

That the Gentiles fhould be fellow heirs, and.of the fame body, and partakers of 


his promife in Chrift by the Gofpel. Pact. 
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me + for of fuch is the 
‘Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus Curisr. 


Then will I fprinkle clean water upon you. Ezekieu, 


q 


NEWPORT, RI. 


PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE NEWPORT MERCURY, 
1808. 


Delivered to Subfcribers, end Sold by Samuen W. Vinson, Noe 74, 
Thames-Street, Newport. 


| ADVERTISEMENT, 
HE Publication of the following Difcourfes has been Jong 
- delayed by an unexpetted difficulty in obtaining paper.— 
3 they were compofed by the writer with the fole defign of ben- 
ting every capacity among his own people, they arenow made 
iblic in compliance with their requelt, and with the additional 
fire of meeting the fpecial providential call, zn¢bis vicinity, for a 
mmary, juft and {criptural view of Pedobaptifn. As a princi- 
od ‘altogether proper, and, in the prefent cafe, unavoidable 
d even eflential, the writer has not forborn to exhibit any 
jeas or arguments, merely becaufe they have been exhibit- 
| or often repeated by others. Upon this fubjedt, treated of 
ie by able Divines, nothing materially new, can, of courle, 
Thow* expefted. A Summary View of the fubjeé&t is the 
tole promifed by the book, or attempted by the writer. To 
ofe of his people, or readers, who defire a more extended 
2w of the fubje&t, he can cheerfully recommend the late ex- 
Ment Publications of the Rev. Drs. Reed and Auftin, and 
the Rev. S. Worcefter; with the laft of whom, the writer, in 
0 or three particulars in his firft Difcourfe,is very coincident. 
The firft of the fubfequent Difcourfes, though probably lefs 
culated than the others to intereft readers in general, is 
t the pillar and ground of the others. For this reafon, it is 
pped, it will be patiently read, and thoroughly underflood.— 
sthe enquiry, What is truth ? ought tabe a fupreme inqui- 
of every man, noone, exercifing the temper of Chrift, or 
imbly relying on his Spirit to guide into the truth, can in- 
ge fear, or reluctance to read ‘and carefully examine Dif . 
lurfés, oppofed to his opinion; nor can any, in fuch a tem- 
i, read a page, pronounce fentence, and calt afide a per- 
rmance. May every reader then, in attending to the follow- 
pages, poflefs that humility, that impartiality, and love of 
nth, with which every mar will be guided intoall truth, and 
1 maintain a pure confcience in the fight of Gad. 


CONTENTS. | 


Discourse I, On the Gracious Nature of God's Covenan 
with Abrabam and bis Seed. | 


Il. On the Right of Infant Baptism. | | 


III. On the Design of Infant Baptism s and a 
Mode of Baptism. 


Yi 
| 


IV. Improvement of the Discourses, 


oe. kee Se 


ERRORS. I a 


Page 20. Line 3, from the bottom—after the words, the one mal 
infert with. 


43- Line 7, from bottom—for 1805, read 17056 : 
Some lefs material errors, the reader will kindly corredte 


——. Lo 


ACTS If. 38, 39. 


Teen Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of 

“you, in the name of Fesus Christ, for the remission of sins, 

and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost : For the pro- 

_ mise is unto you, and ia your children, and ta all that are afar 
off, even as many as ibe Lord our God shall call.. 


HE. fe&ion of fcripture, from which our text is feleéted, 
xhibits an illuftrious fulfilment of feveral promifes of Chrift. 
—When the multitude, affembled upon the day of Pentecoft, 
re, by the Spirit of promife, convinced of their guilt in cru- 
ifying the Saviour of the world, and had folicitoufly inquired, 
bat shall we do, Peter anfwered them inthewords rehearfed. 
epentance and baptifm, he enforced by this weighty encour- 
igement ;—THE PROMISE is unto yeu, and to your children, and 
10 all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
al/l.—But to what promile of fuch high import did he al- 
ude? Ungueftionably, to the promife of the covenant, which 
od made with their father Abraham. The Lord appeared 
unto Abrabam, and said, J will establish my covenant between 
¢ and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant, 
ibe a God unto thee, and to thy secd after thee: Aud in thee, 
nd in thy seed, shall all the navions of the earth be blessed.¥® 
his promife to the ancient Patriarch, including all {piritual 
lefiings, was fuitable matter for encouragement to the 
anxious multitude. We cannot, then, with the leaf pro- 
riety, reftriét the promife in the text to the extraordinary 
lits of the Spirit, or to the prediGtion of Joel, quoted by" 
eter, That God would pour out bis Spirit upon all flesh, and 
heir sons and their daughters should propbesy, and sce visions.— 
s the multitude were defirous of pardon and falvation, could 
he wildom of the Apoftle lead him to introduce the promife 


"he Gen. xvii. 7, and xii 3. 


Cy oe ’ 
of thofe gifts only, which, according to Infpiration, they migh 
have, aad yet remain- workers of iniquity ; and not rather, th 
promife of thofe fpiritual bleffings, uhich were correfponder 
‘to the frame of their minds? Was not the promife, more 
over, made to all true believers of every place, and every ag 
—to all that were afar off? But if it had been limited t 
miraculous gifts, how could the general part of Peter’s hearer 
and fubfequent Chriflians, who partake not of thefe gifts, de 
rive the lealt confolation from it’ Beyond doubt, the eflenti; 
matter of the promife was the pardon of fin, the fan¢lifyin 
gift of the Holy Ghoft, and all {piritual bleflings. . . 


This promise, faid the Apoftle, is unto you, and to your chi 
dren. Yo the Jews, and their children, belonged she offer ¢ 
‘the covenant, and of the gofpel difpenfation. ‘To them, a 
God’s chofen people, pertained, faid Paul, the adoption, and th 
glory, and the covenants, and the promises. To them, the fam 
privileges were attributed by Chrift, who called them the chi 
dren of Abraham, and the children of ibe kingdom, who, if un 
believing, fhould be caft out, while the Gentiles fhould be cal 
ed, and received. Asin Ifrael the promife of God had a/way 
extended to vifible believers, and their children, the Apof 
‘here affured his hearers, that to them, and to sheir childr 
it fhould be perpetuated she same. _ de . 


: ri 

By all that are afar off, the Gentiles are undeubtedly in 
tended. Writing to the Ephefian Gentiles, Paul faid, 7% 
were aliens and strangers to the covenants of promise: But not 
in Christ Fesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh 
by the blood of Christ. But, let it be obferved, the Apoftle ha 
limited the promifg made to the Gentiles, or to them that an 
afar of, by this additional claufe—even as many of them, a 
the Lord our Ged shall call ; or as many of them as fhall heat 
and cbey the call of the gofpel. Hence, in the same manner, 
in which the promife extended to the Mraelites, and to sbem 
children, it was extended to the called and obedient of the Gen 
tiles, and to zbeir children. q 


Such, my brethren. are the obvious ideas, exhibited by ou} 
text. And in the profecution of the fubject, the fallowing fhall 
be the general method of. difcourfe :— Ot 


_ I. To thew, that the covenant of promife, which God mac 
with Abraham, is the covenant of grace, and continues, as 
he iybilunce of it, in full force, under the gofpel difpenfation y 


79 
“IL. To ‘thew, that believers have an undeniable right to the 
refent feal of this covenant for their children : 


IIL. To iIluftrate the important defign of applying this feal 
9 the feed of believers: — 


IV. To afcertain the mode of applying the feal, or the mode 
f baptifm:: 


“And then to improve the fubject. 


‘I. It is propofed to fhew, that the convenant of promife, 
hich God made with Abraham, isthe covenant of grace, and 
ontinues, as to the fubftance of it, in full force, under the gof- 
el difpenfation, | 


‘This covenant is to be carefully distinguished from feveral 
ther convenants mentioned in {cripture. . ‘hough the cove- 
ant of race began to dawn in the firlt promife, that the feed 
e the woman fhould bruife the ferpent’s head; yet it was 
lore extenfively revealed, and confirmed to Abraham. This 
atriarch, faith Scripture, earnefily defired to fee Chrift’s day ; 
e saw it, and was glad ; and unto him was the gospel preached. 
“When received into covenant, he believed God, and it was 
counted unto bim for righteousness. He alfo received circum- 
fion, @ seal of the righteousness of the faith, which be bad, be- 
if yet uncircumcised, or before he was circumcifed.—In this 
wenant, in which he and all believers are juftified by faith, 
od laid extenfively the foundation upon which the whole fu- 
erftructure of the church, to the lateft generations, fhould be 
led. } : | : 
According to the plain import of this covenant, recorded in 
ie feventeenth of Genelis, it muft be the very one of which 
reumcifion was the feal, and is diftintt from the promife of 
é land of Canaan. ‘The promife of the Holy Land was but 
1 appendage, a {mall part, of this covenant.—lIf the promife 
‘Canaan and this covenant were the same, is it not undenia- 
e, that God never fulfilled -his engagement to Abraham, or 
as not a God unto him 2 ‘Chis land was not given to im—~ 
), not so much as to set his foot on. Nay, if they were the same, 
it not a miflake, that all the nations of the earth are blefled 


him? 


This covenant is, furthermore, diflin® from the one made 


(8 ) , 
with Ifrael at Mount-Sinai:, Not obferviti¢. the diftingtion 
thefe, has been, it is believed, the fruitful my of many A 
great error§ concerning the- prefent fubje&t. The Sinai 
nant, as the rule of juftification, is done away; hence, ith 
been concluded with great confidence; that the covenant mai 
with Abraham has alfo ceafed. But what faith Scripture 
thefe covenants? Of the one made with Abraham, Paul fait 
Though it be but a man’s covenant ; yet if it be confirmed, | 
man disanmuileth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abrabam, and F 
seed, were the promises made. Not to seeds as of thatiy, both n 
tural and fpiritual, but ro thy seed, which is Christ, and all ty 
believers included in him. And this I's say, that the covenan 
that was cunfirmed before of God in Christ, THE LAW, or Sin 
covenant, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cai 
NOT DISANNUL, THAT IT SHOULD MAKE THE PROMISE ( 
None EFFECT. The Apoftle himfelf being our guide, are y 
not certain, that the law, or Sinai covenant, was given Ja 
afier the covenant made with Abraham,—that this law has ni 
difannuled the covenant, and is not against the promifes , 
God? Still the Apoftle fubjoined,— ‘The law was added, } 
cause of transgression, until Chrift, who is emphatically she see 
should corhe. But since he bas come, the law, as the role ; 
life, bath no longer dominion over us. For Christ hath delivered 
Jrom the curse of he law ; and bath become the end of the law fi 
righteousness, to every one that believeth. Is not thé reafonin 
of the Apoftle conclufive, that the covenant made with Abrahai 
as distinct from the Sinai, and is ftill in full, unabated force ? 


Let us, however, confider feveral arguments to fupport th 
truth, that the covenant made with Abraham is the covenat 
of grace, and continues, as to the fubftance of it, in full fore 
under the gofpel difpenfation. 


1. By this covenant, Abraham was conftituted rhe Father 
all, even of Gentite, believers. As for mé, faid God to th 
Patriarch, bebold my covenant is with thee, and THOU SHaI 
Be a FatHerR oF Many Nations. Not on account of h 
diftinguifhed chara€ter, but by the fovereign, gracious, pleafui 
of Ged, Abraham was made a far more illuftrious Father tha 
a mere natural parent of many nations, even ‘Tar Fatue 
OF ALL 1HEM 7MAT BELIEVE, whether of his lineal defcent 
ants, or of Gentile nations. It was promifed by God, that b 
lievers, of what age or nation foever, fhould become his feee 
fhould be jufi:fied in the fame manner imwhich he.was; af 


9 1) 


attake ofall the privileges and bleflings of the covertant made 
vith him. Let it then be obferved, that faith conftitutes the 
ovenant-relation between Abraham as a father, and all, even 
‘entile, believers as bis, children. ‘To eltablifh this point was 
ne exprefs object of an important paragraph in the epiftle to 
ne Romans, ‘lo thefe Gentile Chriltians, Paul faid, Therefore 
| or righteoufneds, is of faith, that it might be by graces to the 
ud the promise might be sure 10 ALL the seed, Nor To THAT 
NLY WHICH IS OF THE LAW, BUT TO THAT ALSO WHICH IS 
\F THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, WHO IS THE FATHER OF US 
un :—As itis written, I have made thee A FA1HER OF MANY 
ations. With the fame defign, he received circumcifion; 
Ind be received, added the Apofile, the sign of circumcision, @ 
val of the righteousness of the faith, which be bad, before he was 
ircumcifed, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FaTHER oF ALL THEM 
HAT BELIEVE, THOUGH THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED, though 
iey be not the natural children of the circumcifion, that righte- 
usness might be imputed 10 them also. Hence, Paul, with an 
uphafis, faid to the Gentile believers of Galatia, Jf ye be 
\brist's, then are ye Abraham's seed, aud beirs according to the 
romise. ‘This Patriarch was placed at the head of the cove- 
lant, and ftood as the reprefentative and father of all Jewith 
ind Gentile believers to the lateft generations.—He, as she heir 
f the world, received the promife, that the whole fpiritual fa. 
Inily of Chrift on earth, fhould, by divine conftitution, be his 
leed, is family, and fhould be blefied in him ; and this pro- 


nife was confirmed by the feal of circumcifion. 


| Can this covenant, then, be any other, but the eovenant of 
irace 2 Does it not prefent Abrabam, and all believers, as 
uttified by grace, or by faith without the deeds of the law? 
Does it not eftablifh the relation of grace ?—And is zt possible, 
“hat this covenant, conftituting him with fo much foletiinity, 
the Father of believers, and mentioned by the infpired wri- 
ters with fuch ‘conftant and high eitimation, can be totally a-- 
bolifhed ? Are all the covenant relations, between him and 
his promifed feed finally diflolved ? Is it falfe, that as Ifaao 
rand Ifhmael were his natural children, even so, all believers are 
his adopted, bis constituted children: or that, as his natural 
fons received domeftic enjoyments through their father, even so 
‘believers receive fpiritual bleffings through him? Isita mis + 


take, that Abraham is the appointed father of all the faithful, 
jand that they are blefled in him? Is it an overfight, in Sane 
Paul to declare, that Christ bath redeemed us from the curse of 


‘( 16)) 


‘the lav, THAT THE BLESSING oF ABRAHAM “might t tome | 
‘the GEnTites, through Fesus Christ, that, under the gofp 
which does not diflinguifh its fubjeéts, by nation or fex, th 

‘neither Few nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male 4 
‘female, that ye are all one in Christ Fesus, and that 1° 
“pe Garist’s, THEN ARE YE ABRAHAM'S Sie pe vita Hal 


“ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE? 


+ wa. By the covenant made with Abrahtami the chutch of G 
«was. conftituted with him and his defcendants, and according 
‘feripture, is continued; fubflantially the reat eve he > go | 
. difpenfation. i 


if the language of infpiration be conclufive i in aia ort et 7 
truth, it is conclufive that, by this covenant, achure sen sc 
ftituted in Abraham’s family, and with the Jewith. see 9 
feed... Tothem, faith Paul, fertained 1 the ado option, and. the glo 
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of 2 
_and the promis:s.* They are often.called a bély nation, a k 
. domi of priests, a peculiar treasure, a peculiar people, the Zio 
the Lord of Hosts: the house of God, holiness to the Lord, the, hi 
JSruits of bis increase, and tbe children of tbe kingdom: Are. tith 
more fully expreflive of a church ftate any-where given, e 
_tothe church under the gofpel ? Can titles, more undenia 
_ to the point, be defired? Yet the martyr Stephen, as thot 
_apprehenfive that fome would deny the church-ftate of the Je 
ifh nation, did, when fpeaking of Mofes, folemnly declare, 
T his is he that was in THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS 
It mouft be admitted, unavoidably, that the Jewith nation’ ¥ 
i the church of God, and was thus a ni by the covena 
Made with their father. , , . 


_ _ Infpiration is, moreover, replete wk the featitncht, ‘that 
_ Hebrew church is. continued under the gospel, and is extendet 
_the Gentiles.. The chureh, under both difpenfations, is rep 
_fented by the very fame titles, names, and deferiptions. If 
. fame great charaéterifties and _defc#iptions are applied tot 
. church through both periods, ts it not matter of certainty, th 
‘ the gofpel church is but the Jewith, continued, enlarged, « 
pelos improved? We admit, however, that the Chur 
s received a acw name. For Maiah faid, and he faid wi 

_ is.direGtly to our purpofe, he faid to Zion, —Tuov, and not an 

., ther,church, shalt becalled by a New Lies which the mouth 


“Se }O Rom. ix. °° ** Ads vii, 38 in Sali: Oe 


rs ( «i ) 


ie Lord bath spoken. Accordingly, The disciples, the feed: of 
ibrahath, were called Gurigrians first at Antioch. This new 
! gue Curis11an church, is now given tothe very Zion, 
e very church of the ancient economy. ; ene 


The prophets foretold the continuance of the Jewith church, 
ad its enlargement, by the reception of the Gentiles.—Speak- 
ie of the defe&tion of the Jews by rejeGing Chrift, and the 
y of Zion from the acceflion of the Gentiles, Ifaiah faid: to 
sr, Then thou shalt sayin thine heart, Who hath begotten me 
gEse, seeing I bave lost my children, and am desolate? ‘Thus 
ath the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up my band 10 the Grn- 
tLrs, and tuey shall bring tay sons in their arms, and THY 
wugbters shall be carried upon their stoulders.—Yet more fully 
id the prophet declare, that the church of Ifrael fhould be 
bntinued, and the Gentiles be incorporated with them. The 
lord, faid he to the ancient Zion, she Lord shall arise upon 
ue, and Lis glory sball be seen upon THEE, Not Uponancw 
hurch. The Gentiles shall come to tnx light, and kings to the 
rigbiness of THY risiug. Tsay sons shall come from far.—The 
bundance of the sea shall be converted unto THEE ; the forces of 
be Gentiles stall come unio 1nZE. They that afflicted thee, shall 
all TaEE THE Zion oF THE Lozp oF Hosis.—Z/ will make 
EE AN ETERNAL EXCELLENCE, THE JOY OF MANY GENERA- 
uions:* And the Gentitzs stall see thy righ-eousness, and 
il kings THY GLORY.** Do not thefe prediélions remove 
every doubt, that s4e Zion of the firft difpenfation was to be 
ontinued, and, upon the footing then elftablifhed, was to be- 
some in gofpel, in millenial days, #4¢ Zion of the Lord of Hoss 
and aw eternal excellence? From thefe fcriptures, is the con- 
Infion poffible, that the ancient church was to be thrown down; 
fo that not one ftone fhould be left upon another, that the 
Zion of the Lord of Hofts, inftead of becoming an eternal ex- 
cellence, fhould be blotted out forever, from under Heaven ?— 
es > ~s qT . 
No, my brethren, that church refted upon the covenant made 
With Abraham, upon the bafis of the immutable promife of 
Jehovah; and that church {till exifts, and fhall exift to the end 
of time. 
_ The language of Chrift, and the Apoftles, refpeGting the ac- 
‘tual continuance of the Hebrew church, is in perfe&t harmony 
with the prophets.—Concerning their rejection for unbelief, 
Chrift faid to the Jews, Therefore L say unto yeu, THE KING- 


 * Yaigh be ** Ibid. Iai, 2, 


, Bi dc ie 
pom or Gop shall be taken from you, and given unto anatio 
bringing for'b the fruit thereof. By kingdom of God, Chi 
eften meant the church. Here, he aflerted, that shis kingdon 
the church of God, taken from them, fhould not be deftroye 
but given 10 another, to the Gentile, naiion. . 


. in lonye of the fame event, Paul faid, Hath God cast aw 
kis people ? God forbid. God bath not cast away kis peopl 
which te foreknew. And, yet, if some of the branches be brok 
of: and thou being a wild-olive tree wert grafted in among the 
and with them partakest of the root,.and fatness of the olive-tree 
boast not thyself against the branches ; but if thou boast, thy 
bearest not the root, but the root thee.*—This good olive-iree, ai 
cording to the prophets, reprefents the Hebrew church : the ro 
intends Abraham, who was the root of the church, the nai 
ral branches, his natural defcendants by IMaac and Jacob, al 
raking of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, is partaking of t ¥ 
promifes, privileges, and fpiritual bleffings, which dclonged t 
the roat and the tree, or to Abraham and the ancient churel 
Vhe wild-olive tree, reprefenting the Gentiles in their idol 
‘trous ftate, is grafted into the good olive, the Jewilh church 
But this church has not become extin&t, under ihe gospel ; fo 
the Apoftle affures us that the Gentiles, being grafted ii 
artake of the root and varneEss of the olive-tree ; and thoug 
they fhould doast of their fpiricual flate againft the natura 
branches, fome of which are broken off, yet shey cannot bea 
the root, but the root muft bear them, and be the fource of a 
their bleffings. The day thall alfo arrive, when the fulness’ 
the Gentiles shall come in, and then the Hebrews shall be grafiet 
Not into a new.olive, but inte their own olive-tree, which bein 
undeniably perpetuated under the Chriftian espe 
ibeir own, church, 


According to infpiration, moft deplorable wasthe moral fate 
the Gentiles, under the former economy ; but the Jews wer 
gracioufly diflinguifhed. ‘fo the one the Apoflle faid, 7@ wet 
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers Sfromt ti 
¢ovenant of promise; having no hope, and without God in th 
world.—To the other he faid, Ye are the children of the pr 
phers, and of the covenant which God made with our father 
-But under the gofpel, the middle wall of partition is broke 
down, Vow therefore ye, faid he to the Gentiles, aes a 


* Rom. xi. 1, 17, 18. 


(5 7) 


more ftrangers, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the 
household of God. Nay more, the Gentiles are fellow heirs and 
of the same body, and partakers of bis promise in Christ, by the 
gospel. , 


| 
| 


On the whole, have we not, my brethren, the united teftimo- 
ny of all the infpired writers, that the Chriftian church is but 
the Hebrew, continued and improved? ‘hat the Gentiles 
are fellow heirs with the Jews, of the same body, and are grafted 
‘into the same olive-tree? ‘That this church is conftituted by 
mone other, but the covenant of grace ?—But this church was 
conftituted by the covenant made with Abraham, and his feed. 
(And is this covenant abrogated! Indeed, this covenant is the 
platform ofthe church in all generations, and is now in full 


force. 


| 3. The covenant made with Abraham required, as the only 
qualification by which its bleffings could be fecured, faith, or 
holinefs of heart. 


_ Making the condu& and frequent rebellion of Ifrael the rule 
of judging, many have erroneonfly concluded that God did 
Mot require of them, and that they did not profefs, faith, or 
fiolinefs of heart. But, by the conduét of the Jewifh nation, 
we are not to judge of their duty, and the requirements of 
God. ‘Though they might be circumcifed, and might be, pro- 
fefledly and vifibly, in coyenant with God, yet the only quali- 
fication by which they could fecure the bleflings ef the cove- 
lant, was holiness of heart. 


) Moft certainly, God has not, fince the apoftacy, required 
more than one kind of religion, or obedience of man. Can it 
be prefumed, that he has ever required areligion of mere cere- 
monies, or one in which the heart had no concern: Nay, 
that he has ever required any thing lefs, than the fupreme af- 
fe€tion of the heart? The fentiment would be a refleclion 
pon his chara@ter. In every inftance of duty, he has claimed 
the obedience of the Leart. This was folemnly claimed by 
the commands, given at different times to Ifrael, and was ac- 
knowledged by their profeffions. . 


| At the eftablifhment of the covenant with Abraham, God 
fTaid tohim, Wax BEFORE ME, AND BE THOU PERFECT. 
‘This command, or condition, was delivered to Abraham, as 


C me) | 


part of the covenant, and was, undoubtedly, to remain th 
indifpenfible duty of his defcendants, and of all, who fhould by 
blefled m him. Therefore God added, Fhow shalt keep m 
covenant, thou, and THY SEED AFTER THEE, IN THEIR GENE 
RaTions. When the law was given at Sinai, Mofes me | 
the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of al 
the people, and they faid, Axx that the Lord hath said, wi 

WE DO, AND BE OBEDIENT. And Moses taok the blood of th 
covenant, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Bebold h 
blood of ihe covenant, which the Lord hath made with you, con 
ecrning all these words. At the renewal of the covenan 
on the plains af Moab, God again required, and the peopl 
again profefled, the obedience of the heart: This day, fai 
Mofes, the Lord thy Gad hath commanded thee to do these sta 
tutes and judgments ; thou shalt therefore keep, and do then 
WITH ALL THINE HEART, AND WITH ALL THY sovL. Tuo} 
HAST avoucH:D THe Lorp To Be THY Gop; and to walk 1 
és ways. And THe Lord HATH AvoucHeED thee; this day 
to be bis peculiar people, that thou shouldest keep all bis con 
mantlments, and that shou mayest be a wory people, unto th 
Lord thy God.* This was the generation, who declared t 
Jothua ; God forbid, that we should forsake the Lord. Nay, bi 
WE WILL sERVE THE Lozgp. Of this people, God long afte 
faid, IsRaEL WAS HOLINESS To THE LorD, AND THE FIRS! 
¥eUITS OF HIS Ixcrzase. Did not Jofhua alfo fay unt 
them, Yr sHALL BE HOLY, faith the Lord; for £ the ee 
your God, am boly 2 Did not this require them to poflefs tl 
fame holinefs, which is in Deity ?—God always required ob 
dience of them, as an eflential and the moft important per 
cation. Behold, faid he, to obey is better than sacrifice, and 
kearken than sbke fat of rams. But to the rebellious in heat 
God faid, 7o what purpose is the multitude of your sacrific 
uno me? Bring no more vain oblations ; incense is an abomim 
tion unto me.—vTo the wicked, God saith, What hast thou to 
to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant i 
thy mouth ; seeing thou hatest instruction, and casterb my wo 
bebind thee? Is it not hence undeniable, that God requit 
holinefs of Scart, under the firfl difpenfation, and that the 
obedient and infincere had no right to take his covenant in 
their mouths? If not, why did he fo often and fo folemn 
‘complain of his people for breach of covenant ? “li 
he infli& the heavicll judgments upen them ? Why did. 


*. Gen. xvii. by 2. Exod: xxiv. 7,8. - Dewt?xtvi, 119° ° 


(45) 

i the éarcafes of one generation to fall in the wildernefs? 
‘Why did he fware, that they fhould not enter into his reft ?— 
Vere they, for mere external, ceremonial difobedience, de- 
i. rred from the land of promife? They could not enter in, faith 
e Apoftle, because of unbelief. Why, it may be ftill enquir- 
ed, why were the Jews broken off from their own olive-tree ? 
The fame Apoftle has declared; that they were broken off for 
unbelief! But toevince, beyond doubt, that God never accept-+ 
ed, even of the Jews, mere outward obfervances, but demands 
‘ed the heart, we may add from Scripture,—He i is not a Jew, 
‘bbich is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is out- 
I iri the fleth ; but he is a Few which is one inwardly, anid 
ircumcifion és that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the 
fetter, whose praise is not of men but of God.* None then were 
viewed Jews by God on account of circumcifion, or any out- 
ward privileges, none were entitled to the bleflings of the co- 
Venant, except thofe upon whose hearts were written the prin- 

of their religion. 


| Thus plain and undeniable is it, that the covenant made 
i with Abraham, demanded of him, and his feed, unfeigned obe- 
dience. ‘Thus plain it is, that by the Old Teftament, and by 
ithe New, the fame temper, the fame holinefs, is required ; 
the fame conditions are eftablifhed; and the fame promifés 
are mace to the fame qualifications. How then can it be’ ad- 
mitted that the qualifications required of the patriarch, and 
ithe Jewith nation, were not gospel qualifications? How can 
at be admitted, that the very gofpel, which is now publifhed to 
jus with a degree of increafed clearnefs and folemnity, was not, 
fubftantially, preached to them? In aword, as the covenant 
mn ade with Abraham contained the whole fyftem of gofpel con- 
ditions, and confirmed aplerisads ies to none but the fpi- 


nant of. grace } ? ar phoaar'e all ciateadi@ion, this covenant ftil 
i stains all its requirements, and is the gospel itself, difclofed, 
more extenfively and ylorioufly, in thefe laft days. 


rn Bat we muft here obferve, that the conditions of the cove- 
na nt can, by no means, render the continuance and. aCtual 
jconferment of its bieflfings uncertain. —The beftowment of its 
\blefings upon individuals. was indeed conditional, or fufpended 


%- Heb.. xij, 19. Rom. xi. Rom, ii. 28.29. ‘ 


( 16 ) 


upon their compliance with the terms.—Yet, by absolute pr 
mise, God engaged to give many, a heart to comply with th 
conditions. He declared, J will establish my covenant betwee: 
me and thee, and thy | seed after thee. I will take you to me fo 
a people. J will give them one heart. I will put my fear i 
their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.* Is not thi 
abfolute promife, an additional confirmation of the graciot 
everlafting nature of this covenant ? f 
i 

4. The covenant made with Abraham, contained the mol 
important bleffings, not only for him and his defcendants, bu 
zlfo for the Gentiles, or for all the nations of the earth, 


‘This covenant, firft difclofed to Adam, included all the met 
cies beftowed upon him and his fucceffors. "Through the peri 
od of more than two thoufand years, the church was continue 
inthe family flate; or it was eftablithed, by virtue of this ca 
venant, with faithful families, and received fpiritual ani 
eternal bleffings.—But to Abraham, and to-his feed, bot! 
natural and fpiritual, its bleffings were, at length, efpeciall 
configned.—To Abraham and his seed, faith inipiration, wer 
the promises made.—To them, including Chrift and all beliey 
ers, were made the promifes of all the fpiritual and importan 
bleffings ever to be granted to the nations of the earth. 


To Abraham, the Lord faid, J will establish my | 
between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God unt 
thee, and to thy feed after thee. And in thee and in th 
seed fhall all nations of the earth be blefled. Thefe are p 
mifes of unlimited extent, and of infinite value. “To Abra 
ham—to his feed—to all nations, bleffings are fecured. Doe 
not this promife comprehend all the bleffings ever beftowe 
upon this patriarch and his feed, in their families, as a natio 
and as the church of God? Can language comprife mor 
gracious, more lafting, or more important bleffings, than thi 
promife—I will be a Gapvuies thee, and to thy seed after thee 
‘This promife comprehends Chrift, with all the bleffednefs ani 
glory of his kiistlony. He is the feed) in whom.not only fe 
but Gentiles, or all the nations of the earth, are blefled; am 
from whom they do, in very deed, receive all their prefent, 
their fpiritual and eternal bleflings. ‘That Chrift, however, at 
the whole mediatorial kingdom, in its extent to the Jewith, 

- Gentile, nation, are comprifed im the covenant made 


“ Exod. ii. 7 = Jer. xxxii. $2, 39 40, * Gene-xii 7 = Ibid. mi-"3, 


E G7) 
\Abratiam, is  borifitmed by the exprefs teflimony of infpiration. 
laid the mother of Jefus, God hath holpen his servant Israel, 
tn remembrance of his mercy, as he spake to our fathers, to Abra- 
am and bis sced forever. Thus Mary traced the bleffing of 
*hrifi’s incarnation direélly to the covenant made with Abra- 
am, as its fource. More fully did eevee refer the birth 
f the Saviour to this covenant, and to the oath, which God 
ware unto Abraham. Blessed be the Lori God of Israel, faid 
e for be bath visited, and redeemed his people, and raised up 
a horn of salvation Sor us, th the house of his servant David ; ; 
ho PERFORM THE MERCY PROMIS:D OUR FATHERS, aud 10 
aMcMBER HIS HOLY COVENANT; THE OATH, WHICH HE 
WARE 10 OUR FATHER AsrAnaMm.* Christ bath redeemed us 
L rom the curse of the law, faid Paul, THAT THE BLessING oF 
IBRAGAM MIGHT come, oN THe Génrizss, through Jesus 
Ubrist ** Of the fame import is our text, 7 4e promise of the 
)pirit, and of the moft important bleflings, faid Peter to the 
} altitude, is unto you, and to your children, and 10 all that are 
) far off. From thefe fcriptures, mufi not every candid mind 
feel affured, that all the privileges and bleffings ever beftowed 
pon the kindreds of the earth, are comprehended i in the cove- 
fant made with the ancient Patriarch? As the birth of 
ihrift, through whom remiflion of fins is preached unto all na- 
fons, was in remembrance of the holy covenant; as the bleff- 


‘im and his feed, and in him and his feed would blefs all the 
ations of the earth, Aas come on the Gentiles ; and as the pro- 
fife i: is now unto men and their feed, who ak believe, that this 
; lovenant has waxen old, and vanifhed away? Has this cove- 


jiles ‘as well as of the Jews, been. totally a ane ai ? Are all 
he bléffings of Emmanuel’s birth, kingdom and glory, utterly 
bolifhed ? But difannul the covenant with Abraham, and 
hou fap the very foundation of all the bleflings in Chrift’s me- 
| jation, and terminate, at once, the whole work of redemption. 
rhe privileges of the ancient church were contained in the 
jovenant with Abraham not more than are all the privileges 
[ithe Chriftian church. hn a word, all the. igs" of the 


C 
 ® Luke i, 54, 55, ** Luke i, 683—73 Gal. iii. 14 


aac mannmre TN ie 8 Ba yi : 
ham to the clofe of time, are granted, but in fulfilment of tI 
covenant. ‘The heavens and the earth, then, fhall pafs a 
fooner than this covenant of grace fhall be diflolved. 


5. The covenant made with Abraham — has been repeat 
and molt folemnly conrirmep by God. " 


Brethren, {aid Paul, I speak afer the manner of men; tb 
it be but a Man’s covenant, yet if it be CONFIRMED, no 
disannulleth or addeth hereto. And this I say, that the covenc 
that was CoNFinMED before of God in Christ, the law, w 
was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that 
should make the promise of none effect.* This covenant, fai ; 
the Apoftle, was confirmed by God, and cannot be cvannsi 


By often and folemnly repeating and renewing the pro 
of this covenant, God could have no lefs defign than to om 
it, and fecure the fulleft belief in it. When he command 
Abram to leave his native land, he gave him, but not in 
cleareft manner, this promife. Yet he often appeared to hi 
renewed and difclofed, more fully and clearly from i | 
period, the great promife of his mercy. In the firft promife { 
him all bleflings were comprifed, and at fubfequent perio 
the same promife was renewed, and not a new one = 
Even the promife of a natural feed, as the flars of Heaven 
number, of the land of Canaan fora pofleflion, and of tem 
ral bleflings, were, in “ype, promifes of fpiritual and more 

rious bleffings. By a frequent renewal of the covenant, 
God of Abraham did folemnly confirm ittohim. By the fam 
method, he has given confirmation, that this covenant furviv 
the father of the faithful. After his deceafe, the Lord appez 
ed ina folemn manner to Ifaac, and faid, I wizn PERFOR 
THE OATH, WHICH I swARE UNTO ABRAHAM THY FATH 
In fimilar language did he fpeak to Jacob. By infpirati 
David alfo faid, O ye seed of Israel bis servant, be ye min 
always ‘of bis covenant, the word, which he commanded to a tho 
sand generalions, EV:N OF THE COVENANT WHICH HE M 
with ABRABAM, and of his oath unto Isaae, and natTH Co 
FIRMED THE sAME unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for 
EVERLASTING CovENANT.—Concerning the birth of Chr 
faid Zacharias in the before-cited paflage, God hath raised ; 
an horn of salvation, in tke house of bis servant David; as t 
SPAKE BY THE MOUTH OF HIS HOLY PROPHETS SINCE Tt 


* Gal. iit, 15-17, 


‘(19 ) 


JORLD BE@AN ;——TO PERFORM THE MERCY PROMISED To OUR 
ATHERS, AND TO REMEMBER HIS HOLY COVENANT, THE 
ATH WHICH HE SWARE UNTO OUR FATHER ABRAHAM, 
When the ceremonies were abolifhed, and the gofpel difpenfa- 
ion was introduced, Peter, in our text, brought forward, moft . 
vidently and almoft in the original terms, the covenant. with 
Abraham as the bafis of the Chriftian church, and as the only 
‘round of hope for the multitude,—for their children,—and 
or all nations, ‘To them he faid, The promise is unto you, and 
(0 your children ;—for the Lord faid to Abraham, I will be a 
30d unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Peter added,—io all 
bat are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call ; ~~ 
ind further, the Lord faid to Abraham, and in thee and in thy 
reed shall all the nations cf the earth be blessed. (n a later 
iddrefs to the people, Peter again faid, Ye are the children. of 
‘be prophets, and oF THE covENANT which God made with our 
fathers ; saying unto Abrabam, And in thy seed shgll all the 
nations of the earth be blessed. ‘Thus undeniable is it, that this 
covenant holds a confpicuous place throughout the whole vo- 
lume of infpiyation ; that all the holy prophets, who have been 
ince the world began, have fpoken of :4is, and in that manner 
ivhich is, from God, a confirmation, that zdis is aHE EVER- 
LASTING COVENANT. 


> 


_ Befides the frequent renewal and folemn recurrence of ferip- 
ture to this covenant, God confirmed it by tte seal of circumci- 
sion. At one of the latter and {pecial appearances of God to 
Abraham, he clearly prefented and renewed this covenant in its 
whole comprehenfion.—Not in view of a promife of the holy 
land only, as many have confidently affirmed, but in the molt 
extended view of the covenant of promife, God faid to Abra- 
ham, Thou shalt keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee, 
qn their generations, EvERY MAN CHILD.-AMONG YOU SHALL 
BE CIRCUMCISED.—AND IT SHALL BE A TOKEN OF THE €0- 
VENANT BETWIXT ME AND you. By circumcifion, here 
called a covenant, muft be underftood, according to the fubfe- 
quent explanation, only the token of the covenant. This rite 
fof circumcifion God inftituted as a facred taken, or seal of the 
very same covenant, which conftituted Abraham the father of 
‘the faithful ; and which comprifed the promife, that God would: 
mot only give him the land of Canaan, but would alfo be a God 
ito him and tohis feed. Nay, be received, faith in{piration, be 


® Gen. xxvi. 2, 1 Chron, av. 16, AQs iii, 25; 


SO a ne 


SIGN gf circumcision, A SEAL OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS ¢ 
rartH; that he might be the FATHER of all them, that bel 
Was not Abraham, as before proved, ‘conflituted the father 
the faithful, by the covenant of grace? “Was not righteonine 
imputed to him, and is it not to all who believe, by this coy 
nant only? But this covenant is the very one, ratified an 
confirmed by circumcifion. ‘This facred feal is then an ' 
queflionable confirmation of the covenant of grace. 


God has likewife confirmed it by bis oatru. After Abi 
ham’s faith had been tried, by the awful and affe€ting, but typ 
cal offering of his fon, and when God made promise ‘o him 
because he could sware by no greater, HE SWARE BY HIMSELI 
saying, SurELy BiEssinc lwiit BLEss THEE, and multiph 
ing, £ will multiply 1bee. Lor men verily swear by the greater 
and an oath for CONFIRMATION is tathem an end of all strife 
Wherein, Lod, willing to shew to the heirs of promise,—to Abra 
bam,—to his natural, and, efpecially, to his fpiritual feed 
the ImMUTABILITY of his counsel, CONFIRMED IT BY A} 
oatH y that by two immutable things,—his word or promife, ant 
the oath, in whic it was impossible for God to lie, wE MIGH 
HAVE A STRONG CONSOLATION, WHO HAVE FLED FOR RRFUG! 
JO LAY HOLD UPON THE HOPE SET BEFORE us.** Here, thi 
Apoltle affures us, that to the Patriarch, God did confirm tht 
covenant of promife with an oath, and for this very. purpose, that 
he and all the heirs to the end of the world, or all. who havg 
fied for refuge to lay hold upop the hope fet before them, migh 


the oath of God, and prefented by the Spoile as the 
the oath, the confirmation of Jehovah, ceafed to be of weigh y 
Verily, God is in one mind, and none can turn him. 


This coyenant has, moreover, received the higheft confirm 
ation, by the death and blood of the Redeemer,  Becaule tht 
’ covenant of grace is called under the gofpel a mew covenan’ 
fome have, at once, concluded, that the one made with Abra 
ham is abolifaed, and another totaly different is introduced 
But this is, indeed, a premature, and a falfe conclufion. With 
the greateft propriety, the one made the father of believers, i 
faid to be essablisted upon bevter promifes, and is called a new 
covenant. Becaufe, when it has been greatly obfcured, and al 


* Gen xvitt Rom- iy. Il. ** Heb vi, 18—xvili. compared with Ges 
xxii- 15—18. ie ae ey Cate 


at i ae 


soft forgotten, it has been often senewed ; the gofpel, which ~ 
yore extenfively and clearly difclofes it, is an improved and 24 
ew difpenfation ; in comparifon with the firft covenant, or cos 
‘enant of works, made with Adam in Paradife, and renewed 
“ith Ifrael at Sinai, this is indeed new. The firft covenant 
as alfo waxen old and vanifhed away; but the covenant of 
race endureth forever; and, of courfe, is everlaftingly new. . 
f the great commandment of love, which feripture faith, was 
om the beginning, is called, under a new difpenfation, a new 
amandment, moft certainly, this may be called a new cove- 
mt.—Long before the Chriftian zra, God declared by the 
ephet, that the covenant made with Abraham, comprifing the 
ft of anew heart and all fpiritual bleffings, fhould be eftablith- 
1 with the church under the gofpel: For this is the covenant, 
tat I will make with the house of Israel. After ibose days, saith 
Lord, E will put my laws into their minds, and write them mm 
cir bearts, end 1 witt BE To THEM A Gop, AND THEY 
HALL BE TO Me A PEOPLz. ‘This very promife, moft obvi- 
nfly contained in the covenant with Abraham, Paul quotes in 
s epifile to the Hebrews as the leading promife in the new 
yenant, which upon better promifes than the firft covenant, 
that of works, is eftablifhed with the true Hrael, or church 
God under the gofpel. Hence, that the covenant made with 
Draham is the one, which the apofile defignates as the acw 
yenant, is undeniable. . ; 


Of this, however, Chrift is the Mediator; and to confirm 
is, he fhed his own blood.—The prophets called him, the Co- 
nayt of the people,—the messenger of the Covenant. ‘The in- 
ired Mary faid, Chrift was fent into the world in remembrance 
his mercy, as God spake to our fathers, to Abraham and bis 
d forever. Heis the Mediator of a better covenant ;—And 
Fesus, the. Mediator of the new covenant. ‘Yo effe& the full 
ablifament of this covenant with the church, and to ratify it 
the higheft manner, or to fecure the divine glory in the falva- 
pn. of man, Chrift died on the Crofs. Thus we are taught, 
at he was conftituted the Saviour, or the Great Shepterd of tke 
mep, through tke Buoop of the everlasting covenant. And of 
w much sorer punishment shall they be thought worthy, who 
ave counted the Bioon. of the covenant an unholy thing.—Even 
: firft covenant renewed at Sinai was confirmed by the fprink- 
ag of blood. Our Lord alio taught his difciples, that his blood 
as the high confirmation of the new covenant ; and, as the 
1 of its everlafting efficacy, he gave them the facramental 


{ Lt 4 ) =  # a 


eup, and faid, This is my Broon of the New Testament. Thu 
beyond all difpute, the covenant, which God made with Abr 
ham, is the new covenant, is the one of which Chrift is the 
diator ; and to ratify, or add the finifhing confirmation to whie 
he devoted his own blood. Wow, I say, faith Paul, that Fes 
Christ was a minister of the circumcision, and for this expre 
purpole, to confirm the promises made unto our fathers.* Ti 
covenant made with the fathers is, therefore, the very fam 
which is now eftablifhed with the gofpel church, and of whi 
the inftitutions of baptifm and the Lord’s Supper are the pref 
appointed seals. How can it then be faid, that this covenat 
with Abraham, has vanifhed away? How can it be faid, th 

of this there is a total abrogation! Verily, ifthis be rine | 
the zew covenant, eftablifhed upon better promites, 's abrogat 

If this be abolithed, the blood of Chrift is of no value.—Chri 
is dead in vain, ye are yet in your fins! Ifthis be in 
the facraments of the New Teftament are finally abolifhed. — 
this be abolithed, all the acclamations of the redeemed, unto bi 
that hath washed them from their sins in his own blood, are ‘ 


ever fufpended ! If this be abolifhed, the endlefs joys of heave 
and the whole falvation of man, are brought to an eternal end 
Nay, if this be abolithed, its frequent renewal, the facred tok« 
of circumcifion, now anfwered by baptifm, the oath of Jehov 
the blood of Chrift and eternal redemption, as of no value, 
leveled to the ground, and man, the heir of immortality, r 


ceives a plunge into all the mazes of uncertainty, fin ax 
death ! ; 


The prefent, my brethren, is but a fummary view of the ev 
dence, that the covenant, which God made with Abraham, 
the covenant of grace, and continues, in unabated force, unde 
the gofpel difpenfation. This view is, indeed, fummary. B 
caufe the fentiment before us pervades the whole volume | 
' {cripture, and to prefent the full evidence of it, would be’ 
exhibit in detail the greater part of infpiration. For-it is ul 
deniable, that intimations of the great work of redemption wei 
given to Adam. Thefe intimations were rendered more cle; 
and full through fucceflive periods, down to Abraham. In 
fill further extended view, God eftablifhed his covenant wil 
him and his feed. In the various generations of Hrael, efj 
cially in the days of Mofes and Jofhua, David, and Nehemiai 


* Compare Jer. xxxi. 33, with Heb.x.9—11, Ifai, iv. 2—6, Mal. iii. 1. 
Viti: ©, 12, 24.—xiil, 20. Matth. xxvi. 28, and Rom, xv. & 


. ( 23 ) 
ye work of redemption was illuftrioufly advanced. To carry 
b ri ard, in the moft glorious manner, the fame work, Meffiah 
- length appeared, prefented, and by his death confirmed, the 
venant made with Abraham, and delivered it, breaking forth 
ith all its lufire, under a new difpenfation, or in the form of 
ue New Testament, as his legacy to all believers to the end of 
me. All the bleffings of the church, therefore, from Abraham 
Chrift, from Chrift to the prefent age, and from the prefent 
ge through the Millennium, are but the progreflive accomplifh- 
sent of one infinite work ; and are but the fulfilment, or dif. 
ofure, in detail, of the promife to the Patriarch, that in him 
nd in his feed all the nations of the earth fhould be blefled.— 
his covenant, then, which comprehends bleffings for all be- 
ers and their feed, fhall endure as long as the fun and the 
Te Nay, as it comprifes all the bleffings of the church in 
Ory, itis, literally, the gracious, the everlasting covenant. 


i 
bint Rouen 
| a) Miya lt % Me ‘af yh ite wy 
“ ¥ 7 ¢4 
4 7) 
ee 
4 fs 
a hee 
‘ yen 
! ¥ 
i ar ‘ i 
§ + 
, & ¥ 
rp aN eis 
rv : ¥. 
> ’ " 
Cay Dh 
° } : a7 Me 
aa | i 
. hei I 
“ ~ 
“— 
f, 
5 
; a 
v 
; 
4 ‘ 
’ 
d 
ie 
: 
‘ 
’ 
‘ 
. 
| 
~ 
1 4 3 . 
\ 
Se 
ie 4 
i} 
\ ; i 
| 
{ 
ht 
q 


ee SERMON: -1t | 
THE RIGHT OF INFANT BAPTISM. 


Se Oe 


To the view we have already taken of the covenant made 
with Abraham, additional light and confirmation will arifé 
from. our next head of difcourfe; which is, 


Il. To fhew, that believets have an undeniable right to the 
prefent feal of the covenant for their children. Ybe promis¢ 
iS unto You, and TO YOUR CHILDREN. 


_ Eftablifhing his covenant with Abraham, God enjoined tir- 
cumcifion upon him, and his feed. his, faid he, is my cove» 
nant, which-ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after 
thee: Lvery man-child among you shall be circumcised * 'Yhe 
circumcifion of himfelf, arid of his feed throughout their géne- 
rations, God required, and.declared, this fhould be a token be- 
tween him and them. ‘This feal of the covenant was to be 
applied to children, with no lefs folemnity than to parents ; 
and its application to one was as indifpenfible 2s to the other: 
This great and interefting privilege, God granted and continu: 
ed to his people many ages. He direéted parents to look ups 
on their children with all the warmth of parental and benevo- 
lent affeCtion, as included in the fame covenant with them- 
delves. Should any imagine, however, that circumtifion was 
but an outward, empty rite; nothing more in reply will be 
faid, at prefent, than what the Spirit of Infpiration hath faid; 
that citcumcifion was a seal of the righteousness vf faith i— 
now faith is not of works, but of grace. A fea) of the covenant 
of grace was then applied, by the merciful grant of God, to 
children as wellasto parents. And fince this covenant is con 
tinued in full force to the prefent moment, is there not, from 
‘the natute of the cafe, a great probability, that a new feal 18 
“appointed in the room of circumcifion? If it can be itiade 
to appear, that fome ordinance of the gofpel does fupply the 
place of this ancient feal, then, as this was formerly applied to 
the Iced of believers, the ordinance, coming in its place; mutt, 

D B P 


\ | * Gen. xvii. 10, 
| « - 
' 


{ 26 ) 


~— Si 4 
beyond doubt, refpeét the fame fubjeéts ; ‘and believers, as for 
merly, muft now hold, undeniable, their privilege and ee 
this feal. for their children. This privilegé they do hold, ut 
lefS it has been exprefsly repealed. But to eftablith their pre 
fent right, let it be obferved ;. i ‘| 


. Rog Ty Ne tubes y 
1. The fcriptures neither express, nor imply, a repeal, .o| 
difeontinuance of this right. aay soem: 


_ We, my brethren, are not. howevet, bound to prove, ‘th 
God has not repealed. this privilege. But they, who profefs ; 
denial of this right, are moft facredly. bound. to prove, beyonc 
doubt, that God has repealed it; or elfe, as this command wa: 
enforced with the utmoft folemnity, they mufk be chargea 
with difobedience to the authority of heaven, © 


~ But it can be made; it is believed, clearly to appear, that t 
divine command, to apply the feal of the covenant to the 
of believers, has never been repealed. BX, 


The {uppofed filence of the New Teftament, concerning thi 
continuance of this right, is not even an intimation ofits ré 
peal, ‘the command, firft given, was exprefs and pofitive Be 
promife concerning the feed of the chutch!' was full‘and deter 
minate. Undeniably, the fubfequent principle mult be cor 
ceded ; that a command once given, a promiife onde made, a 

limited to no period, muft remain in full force, until repealet 
by the fame authority by which it was'given. ‘But where is | 
repeal of this command? Where is a prohibition of this Hv 
lege? Where can any-thing, containing éven an intimation 
of this, be difcovered?: Is it in the preaching of Chrift?* “Th 
Gofpels are filent, . Is it in the inftru@ions of the Apoftles 
Neither the A@s nor the Epiftles contain it. The ceremonit 

and the former difpenfation are indeed repealed, but not th 
bleflings difpenfed.. Widely different is a difpenfation fron 
the bleflings difpenfed; the former may be annulled, but th 
Jatter continue, as long as the fubje@ts, who receive then 

continue. The command and the promife, concerning th 
children of the faithful, not being reftrifted to any time, iy re 
main without arepeal, and in full force. Moft certainly, ther 

was not, atthe introdudtion of the gofpel, any need of a we 

command or a new grant.—Chrift and the Apoftles knew, tha 
this right had once been moft folemnly fecured to the church 
and that, without any renewal, it muft, as much as any com 


wt 4 77 3 
id or promife ever given to man, retain its original place 
and facred importance. ‘They knew, that the change of the 
putward fign of circumcifion to baptifm, could neither annul 
ie requirement, nor render needful a new command. . There 
Was Mo neceffity for a new command to enforce the obligation 
of the Sabbath, though the day was changed. Very certain it 
$, from fcripture, that the day of the Sabbath is changed; but 
inew command is not given. And for this obvious reafon; 
the command had been given, and muft continue forever bind- 
ing, unlefs exprefsly repealed. But as the gofpel ne where 
implies a repeal, the original obligation of the command mutt 
fow ftand unabated and undeniable. In the fame manner, the 
d ag privilege of believers remain indifpenfible and unal- 


_ It is, moreover, not true, that for every gofpel duty, there 
muft be an exprefs gofpel command. There is no command 
to admit females to the facrament of the Supper, but none of 
us denies, or doubts, this duty. Yet, if the want of a goipel 
‘command, to apply the feal of the covenant to the feed of the 
church, prove the application of it unlawful; then, the want 
of acommand muft forever exclude females from the com- 
mnunion. ‘The want of anew command, therefore, under the 
ofpel, of which it has been fhewn there was no neceflity, is not 

argument of the leaft weight, againft the duty and right of 
ieving parents. 


Nor is the general ftrain of feripture, requiring adults to 
repent and believe, in order to be baptized, the leaft evidence 
againft the baptifm ef infants. Undoubtedly, adults are re- 
quired to believe before they are baptized; but is this a proof, 
that, when they believe, their children are not with them to be 
baptized? Aftonifhing as it may feem, this method of reafon- 
aps though completely’ void of any weight, or pertinence, and 
hough it has been fhown to be fuch, repeatedly, is ftill advanc- 
ed, and by thofe, who believe affertions without examining 
‘them, is embraced as an argument, which effe&s a total and 
irrefiflible overthrow of the baptifm of infants! But whether 
vadults are to believe, before they are baptized, is not even a 
gucfiion between us and thofe who deny infant baptifm. In 
‘this we are perfely agreed.—But the quefiion between us 
is precilely this :—Are the cu1ipr EN of believers to be baptized 2 
igaing the affirmative of this, no objeSion can poflibly be 

| Brged frem the conditions on which adults become entitled 


oe ) 


( 28 ) ics 
to baptifm. If it be faid, that the {criptures require faith 
precede baptifm ; that infants cannot believe; and, of courle, 
are not to be baptized: then, this confequence, which we all de. 
ny, muft follow ; that as infants cannot believe, fo they can, in 
no cafe, be faved. For if this argument prove, that no infants 
are ta be baptized, it proves equally, that noinfants can be fay. 
ed. Yetitis plain, that the requirement of faith before baptifm 
has no refpeét to infants, but to adults only. Accordingly, the 
adults among the Ifraelites, who had not been circumcifed, 
were required to exercife faith, and fupreme love to God, be- 
fore they were circumcifed ; but all this was no evidence, thai 
their children were not, after them, to be circumcifed. Indeed. 
this term of their cireumcifion, and the command to put i 
feal of God’s covenant upon their children, were both enjoine 
upon them, at the fame time and in perfe€t agreement. ° So 
under the gofpel, the requirement of faith in adults, as the term 
of their baptifm, andthe duty of applying the fame token te 
their feed, may-both be enjoined upon them, at the fame time 
and in perfe€t agreement. To contradict this fentiment, anc 
the privilege of believers, there is not the leaft intimation ‘in 
all the fcriptures. Even the commiffion of Chrift to his Apof 
tles, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them; and the exhortatior 
of Peter in my text, Repent and be baptized, do not fo muct 
as fuggeft, that the feed of believers were not to be baptized. 
"Till the very day on which Chrift commiflioned his Apoitles 
circumcifion had been uniformly obferved as the feal of th 
covenant, and had-been applied, equally, to believing patent: 
and to their children. Had not the feal been changed, anc 
had Chrift faid, Go, teach all nations, circumcisine them ; 
and had Peter faid, Repent and be crxcumcIsED ; for the promise 
is unto yor and 10 your children, who would ever have furmifed 
that the feal of the covenant was not to be applied to the feec 
of believers? Had the language been this, no nfan, it is prefum 
ed, would ever have had a fufpicion, that children are now ex 
cluded from the covenant. But the fa& was, eireumcifion wa 
a yoke, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear 
and was te give place te baptifm; which, as we thal! mor 
fully thow in its place, is of the fame import, ‘Phe change o 
an outward fign, however, can never, as already obferved 
change the fubje&ts, nor abolith the bleflings fecured to them 
—Mut it not, therefore, be conceded on alt hands, that, whet 
believers are admitted to the church and receive baptifim, the: 
are now moft folemmnly bound, in virtue of the unaltered re 


| | ( 29 ) | 

quirement of the covenant, to devote to God their offspring, 
oy the application of the fame feal to them? This duty is, 
rertainly, as indifpenfible as though circumcifion were the gof- 
‘ye feal. = 


_ Nor can the reftriétion of the ancient feal to males, and the 
xtenfion of baptifm to females, militate in the leaft againft 
ipplying the prefent feal to infants, or againft the fentiment, 
hat baptifm has come in the place of circumcifion. ‘Though 
the males only were actually circumcifed, yet the females were 
confidered as reprefented, and included in them. For God 
commanded, that no uncircumcifed perfon fhould eat the pafl- 
over, and declared, that every foul, who tranfgreffed in this, 
fhould furely be cut off from his people. Yet females were 
allowed to partake of the paflover; and, of courfe, muft have 
deen viewed as circumcifed, and included in the males. It is 
rue, however, that under the former economy, females were 
not allowed all the privileges of males. But by the Spirit of 
infpiration, we are aflured, that under the gofpel, There is nei- 
ther Few nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, THERE IS 
NEITHER MALE NoR FEMALE; for ye are all one, in Christ 
Jesus. ‘* In Chrift Jefus, there is no diftinQion of perfons, as 
under the law ; under the gofpel, no Jew is fuperior to a 
reek,” or Gentile; ‘neither are flaves inferior to free 
men; nor are males preferredto females: for ye are all one 
in refpe&t to dignity and privileges, under the gofpel difpenfa- 
tion”.* Though the ancient relation between believers and 
their children is not here faid to be diflolved; yet the diftinc- 
tion between Jews and Gentiles, flaves and freemen, males 
and females, as such, is by the gofpel, which places all men 
mpon a level, wholly unknown, and totally difavowed. But 
the gracious extenfion of the feal to females, can no more prove 
it a new feal, than a large acceflion to a church proves it a mew 
church. 


| Other differences are alfo acknowledged, between circum- 
cifion and baptifm; but thefe are all circumftantial, and afford 
no ground for the conclufion, that the prefent feal of the cove- 
Mant has not taken the place of the former, or that the right 
concerning infants is not continued in full force under the 
gofpel. Has it not been made already to appear, that im all 
the fcriptures there is not the leaft intimation of a repeal, or 


® Gol. ii, 28—and Mac Knight, upon the verie. 


*( 4go'Y) 


difcontinuance ofthis privilege? Nay, from’ what has 

offered, does not more than this clearly appear? Do not t 
command—the promife—the right, once confirmed, conce 
ing the infants of the faithful, ftand, as yet, with all their fo 
lemnity and primitive obligation? With the utmoft feriouf 
néfs then; we may now enquife . concerning the baptifm o 
infants, Can any man forbid water, that thefe fhould not be bap 
tized? Certainly, to deny the feal of the covenant to them, i 
‘an attempt to repeal the command and the promife at firft given 
and to this day continued, by God himfelf, without a repeal t 
2. The {criptures contain many things, which fully imph, 
_the continuance of this right. ) 


Any fentiment, which is an obvious and a fair infereneg 
‘from the explicit inftru€tions of fcripture, muf demand » 
‘fame faith with which we embrace pofitive aflertions, If then 
‘the covenant relations between parents and their feed be full | 
implied in revelation, we muft believe them facred and in if. 
‘penfible. © 


'. In all the former covenant tranfactions of God with me n, 
ehildren have been uniformly included with their parents.— 
An the covenant of works made with Adam before the fall, al 
his defcendants or the whole human race were comprifed. Ik 
the firft promulgation of the covenant of grace in the promif 
ef God, that he would put enmity between the ferpent’s feet 
and the feed-of the woman, children were evidently included 
Though this feed has a primary reference to Chrift, it yet ex: 
-tends to ali believers; for after the birth of Seth, Eve faid 
Cod hath appointed me another scxp instead of Abel, whon 
Cain slew. Ailfo this is a promife of that enmity againft th 
ferpent and his feed, which is exercifed by all the righteous 
——When God eftablifhed his covenant with Noah, he include¢ 
his children.—The fame favour, did God, in a moft eminent! 
degree, confer upon the feed of Abraham. In the covenant 
with Ifrael, at Mount-Sinai, God exprefsly included their chi 
“dren, or little ones. Even in the covenant of priefthood wit 
Aaron, and of royalty with David, be embraced their children 
_—Trom their appointed conneétion with their parents, chit 
dren, the firft moment of their exiftence, become fubje& to dif 
eale and death, and may partake of redemption by Chrift, Tr 
‘all*the- {pécial covenants, which God has ever made with 
parents, he has conneéted their feed with them, ‘Nor has h 


Grst 3 | 
excluded themi from his covenant, uniefs for ageravated 
‘nin them, or in their parents. When the latter have exceed 
ngly offended Jehovah, as a real punifhment upon them, he 
))as, in fome cafes, denounced and executed judgments upon 
beirdefcendants. But, on the other hand, he has granted 
eculiar bleffings to parents, in promifing and beftowing them 
pon their children. Since, in this light, he has always pre- 
ented the folemn conneétion between parents and their feed ; 
fpecially, fince he eftablifhed the covenant of grace with 
Mbraham, exprefsly included his feed, and has perpetuated 
ne fame covenant under the gofpel ; is the belief poffible, 
paat yet God has, at length, forgotten children, or has totally 
} xcluded them. from that covenant-ftanding, which he has al- 
lays granted them? Under the gofpel, a fyftem of good newsy 
Pre children caft into a fituation, than which God never placed 
Jsem ina worfe? Are parents alfo forbidden the feal for them, 

nd deprived of a former ineftimable bleffing ? It is.impoflibles 
io deny the facred conneétion of parents and children is toga 
breast to all the covenant.tranfaGtions of God with his peos 
Te, from time immemoriak We have, therefore, a ftrong, 
refumptive argument, that as all former covenants have in- 
luded children, fo the prefent covenant of the church mult 
clude them. ee hy Mei 


Fully implying this fentiment, and foretelling the flate of the 
hurch in gofpel days, the Lord faid by his prophet, Lebold, 1 
pill lift up my and to the Gentiles, and they shall bring tnx 
ONS IN THEIR’ anos, and thy daughters shall be carried upon 
beir shoulders. The Gentiles were to be introduced into the 
murch, which then exifted, and were to bring their children, 
he sons of Zion, in their arms, and to dedicate them to God; 
a the fame manner in which they were then devoted to him. 
M perfeé& ‘coincidence with this, Jeremiah foretold concerning 
ne people of God under the golpel, Tuerr cninDREN ALSO 
MALL. BE AS AFORETIME. Beyond all-doubt;."the children 
[ believers were formerly conneéted in covenant with their 
arents, and received the fame feal with them... And here the. 
rediction is exprefs, that under the gofpel, 7 eir children shall 
f AS AFORETIME. Promifing the higheft bleflings to the 
‘Aurch under the prefent difpenfation, God did not forget the 
red of his pecple, but faid; J wi// pour my Spirit upon tux 
FED, and my blessing. upon thine orFsPprinc. ‘To the fame 
Hect he again faid, Tley are the seed of the blessed of the Lord. 


 4at J a 
and their offspring with them.—And I will give them one beay 
and one way, ore before me forever, for the good of the 
and of THEIR CHILDREN AFTER THEM.* In what expre 
terms are children here conneéted with their parents, in . 
covenant and in the fame bleffings? Of what high and faer 
import is this regard which God manifefts for the feed of h 
people? Do notthefe predictions of the gofpel zra prove, th 
the relations between believing parents and their children we 
to be inviolably preferved, and that, fo far from cutting the 
in funder, God would give to parents a right {pirit, one hea 
and one way, not only for their own good, but alfo for th 
good of their children after them ? q 


John, the harbinger of Chrift, was fent for ‘te Special pf : 
gle of enforcing parental obligations, and of reviving God 
covenant with parents and their feed. He was to go befo 
Chrift, faith infpiration, Fo Turw THE HEARTS oF THE 
THERS UNTO THE CHILDREN, ‘and in this way, 10 make re 
a people prepared for the Lord, lest he thould come and smi 
the earth with a curse.**—The turning of the hearts of the & 
thers unto the children was a neceflary and an appointed meat 
of preferving the earth from a curfe, and of preparing the pet 
ple for the advent of the Saviour. Is not the conclufion the 
moft abfurd, that when Chrift came, he demolifhed all this pre 
paration, and turned the hearts of the fathers away from tl 
children; that he totally abolifhed all the facred relations 
tween parent and child;—relations which he had inftitutes 
and which he, as the messenger of the covenant, had fent fort 
John, for the very purpofe of reviving and enforcing! Inde 
for us to adopt this conclufion, would be impiety; would 
to fix the charge of inconfiftency upon the Lord from heavel 
We are conftrained to reje&t this belief and to feel aflured, thi 
Chrift preached and praétifed in perfe&t agreement wih his, ( 
reCtions to John. ; 


Accordingly, he was much difpleafed with his difciples f 
oppofing thofe, who brought little children unto him, that f 
might blefs them. To them he faid, Suffer little children, a 
Sorbid them not to come unto me ; for of such is the kiti 
Heaven.* From the account of this interefling feene, it is unc 
niable, that thefe children were very young, were brought 


* Ifai. xlix. 21,22. Jer. xxx.90, Ifai: xliv. 3. ‘Jer. xxxii, 39. ** Mat. iv. 
Luke i. 17. * Mat. xia. 14. Mark x. 14, 


G37] 


chrift, and by parents, who believed, or appeared to believe 
A the Saviour; for others would not bring their children to 
hi Chrift, however, laid his hands on them, blefled them, 
Ind faid, Of such is the kingdom of Heaven. By the kingdom 
Wf beaven, we muft underttand, either the gofpel difpenfation, 
br the church on earth, or elfe the ftate of eternal glory. If 
he phrafe intend the gofpel difpenfation, then Chrift has affert= 
fd, that this difpenfation embraces and makes ptovifion fot 
thildren, as such. If it intend the church on earth, Chrift has 
aught, that children are included in the church. Or if it in- 
fend the flate of eternal glory, then, we juftly inquire, are 
thildren to receive all the everlafling bleffings of the covenant 
f grace, but yet to be denied the sea/ of the covenant on earth ? 
Rather, according to aticient prediction, are they not, as zhe 
dhs of Zion, to be publicly brought to Chrift, to receive the 
cal of the covenant, and to be accounted the feed of the church? 
ndeed, we might reafonably expeét, this expreffion of high res 
rard for children, but of pointed rebuke to all, who forbid pa- 
rents to bring them, would be eagerly embraced, by affections 
ite, believing parents, as full encouragement to prefent their 
thildren, publicly, to Chrift, that they may be blefled, and re. 
peive the feal ot vifible relation to the kingdom of beawen. 

Concerning Zaccheus alfo, profeffing his faith and repetit- 
ance, Chrift faid, 74is day is salvazion come to this bousé s 
FORASMUCH AS HE ALSO IS THE son oF ABRAMaM.x In 
his inftance, the Saviour undeniably taught; that faith confti- 
tuted Zaccheus one of the fpiritual fons of Abraham, and was 
the ground on which he applied the promife of the covenant 
dire&tly to his houfe, or family. - Chrilt called Aim only, the sow 
of Abraham, and declared, that falvation was come, not to him 
only, but alfo to his houfe. For God faid to Abraham, J will 
be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Mott certainly, 
Chrift taught, that a folemn covenant relation fubfilled be- 
tween this believer and the father of the faithful; and that the 
promife and outward privileges of the covenant were fecured 
to him and éo Ais house on account of Ais faith, in the very man- 
Mer, in which they were fecured to Abraham and to his house 
on account of his faith. While fetting up the prefent difpen- 
bation, thus folemnly did Chrift recur to the covenant with 
Abraham, as the foundation of the gofpel church; andas prey 


* Luke xix. 9, 


j a. } 

EES, ee er 
ferving, moft facred, the relation between parents and th 
houfeholds. But, notwithflanding all this, did he intend { 
to abolifh this covenant, to exclude infants from any relati 
to their parents, and to banifh them, forever, from their form 
ftanding in his church! Rather, did he not know, that’ 
had infpired the prophets to declare of his people in goff 
days, Their children also shail be as aAroxret1mME ?—That 
had commiflioned John, To turn the hearts of the fathers wun 
the children? This he well knew; and he came to confi 
the fame great and benevolent defigns, the fame promises m 
unto the fathers. “rey ai 


_ Fully eftablifhing this fentiment, Chrift gave to his Apoft 
this commiffion; Go, teach att NATIONS, baptizing THEI 
—and teaching them 10 observe all things, whatsoever I ba 
commanded you.* This commiffion required them, in t 
plaineft language, to teach, or difciple, and to baptize afl. 
tions. Certainly, children and infants, are a part of every 1 
tion, and are to be baptized. As the Ifraelites, according 
the divine command, could teach their offspring the flatu 
of the Lord; fo the embafladors of the gofpel could teach ck 
dren through their parents, and according to the true impr 
of the word, teach, they could, by applying the feal of the ¢ 
venant to infants, discipfe them as well as their parents. 
Chrift, moreover, commanded his Apoftles, to teach all na ie 
to.observe all things, whatsoever he had commanded them, _ 
had commanded them to fuffer little children to be brou 
unto him. ‘This, they were, therefore, commanded to tea 
ALL NATIONS TO OBSERVE. mil a 


aught by the religious cuftom of the Jews, in bapti zi 
the profelyted Gentiles, and alfo séeir children ; and. guit 
by the plain import of their commiflion, the Apoftles, evide; 
ly, inculcated and obferved the duty of Infant Baptifm. 


In his ever memorable addrefs to the multitude, Peter ff 
Repent, and be baptized every one of you ;—for the promise 
unto you, and TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ‘This prom 
equally includes ‘parents and children. ‘The text, which 
paraliel to this, and is a juft interpreter of it, is the promife 
God to Abraham ;—J will be a God unto thee, and 10 thy$ 
ajier thee. "Yhat feed and children intend the fame perfo 


, 


- * Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, 


— ween 4 


ao man will doubt. Nor will any doubt, but the promife to 
Abraham embraced his children, as fully and exprefsly, as him= 
elf. As fully and undeniably, does the promife, prefented 
by Peter, comprehend children with their parents. What 
dea did the Jews, who heard the Apoftle, naturally receive - 
from his declaration ? Throughout the former difpenfation, 
the promife of God uniformly ran ;—Tao thee, and to thy seed. 
m their prefence, Peter, on the morning of the gofpel day, 
profe and faid, The premise is unto you, and to your children. 
In truth, they muft have fully believed from this, that the pro- 
mife was continued, unaltered, to their infant feed. 'T his the 
poftle certainly taught them in language the molt exprefs; or 
elfe he intended to put an impofition upon the common fenfe 
of his hearers, and of the whole church. In this, all the other 
Apottles alfo, as they have not contradiéted him, have combin- 
ed. This promife, however, did extend to Jewith parents, and 
to their children; and it does now extend, in the fame manner, 
to believing parents, and to their children; even to as many, 
as the Lord our God fhall call. Itis error, it isa full blow 
in the face of the text, to pretend, that the promife is to thofe 
individuals only, who are called, and not to their children. 
The Jews, who heard Peter, were pricked in their hearts, and 
Were then the called. But Peter looked over and beyond them, 
and faid, the promife is to your children ;—not only to you, 
who hear me and are called, but alfo to your children, now 
abfent and as yet uncalled. In this cafe, does not the ‘Apofile, 
after the eftablifhment of the gofpel difpenfation, addrefs his 
hearers, in precifely the fame language in which he would have 
addrefled them under their former difpenfation ? Can there 
he given a clearer demonftration, that the conneétion of chil- 
dren with their parents is preferved by the gofpel, and that the 
promife comprifes the feed of believing Gentiles? Indeed, 
if the feed of believing Gentiles be not comprifed with theic 
parents, they are deprived of {pecial privileges, which Peter 
aflured his hearers were, under the gofpel, continued to the 
feed of Jewith believers. If, moreover, the promife to thofe, who 
fhould afterwards be called. did not embrace their feed, it was 
to them not the fame promife, which it was to Peter’s hearers. 
For as this promife is made to. parents and children, it is effen~ 
tial, that both be included; and a change of the fubjects: will 
effect a change of the promife. It may be faid, the promife is 
to your children, but not to you, with as great propriety, as 
that it is to you, but not to your children, The fact is, the 


r 
4 


Ce } ie 4 


promife includes both you and alfo your feed, and to exch 
either is to change the promife. As the promife firft mad 
Abraham was, throughout the generations of Ifrael, perpetua 
the fame, To tice, and to thy seed ;—fo, to the called, of ey 
age and nation, under the gofpel, the promife prefented by 
ter, is perpetuated the fame ; To you, and io your children. 


A feal conneéted with a promife alfo belongs, ef right, to 
the perfons to whom the promife belongs. Moft certainly, 
thofe to whom bleffings are promifed, have a right to the s 
rity of thofe bleffings. ‘This is true in the tranfa@tions of m 1 
‘This is true in the tranfactions of God with his creature 
‘They, who had aright to circumcifion, the feal of the covenan 
were the very perfons to whom the promife was made. The! 
were, equally, parents and their feed. Vhey, who hat 
a right to baptifm, are the yery perfons to whom the promi 
is\made. ‘Ihefe the Apofile aflures us, are believing parent 
and their children. Are not believers baptized, becaufe th 
promife is made to them? Shall not their children then, fin 
the fame promife is made to them, receive the fame feal ? Bi 
vond all denial, if this text eftablifhes the baptifim of believer 
it does, with equal weight of evidence, eftablifh the baptifm 
their feed. It, moreover, demonftrates the continuance of th 
covenant made with Abraham, of the relation between pare n 
and their children, and the gracious purpofe of God, ¢o beta 
the richeft bleflings upon the feed of his faithful people. 


Coinciding with Peter, Paul declared; If the first fruit | 
holy, the lump is also holy : and if the root be boly, so are th 
branches. As Abraham, the firft fruit of the covenant and th 
root of the Jewifh nation, was holy ; fo his feed, the lump an 
the natural branches, ina covenant relation, are holy. Her c 
the feal of this relation to God and to the Patriarch was applie 
to them. ‘This very cafe the Apofile has adduced from th 
Old ‘Teftament, to illuftrate the covenant conneétion of th 
faithful and their feed under the gofpel. Therefore, if pare n 
be holy, fo are their feed. Concerning this truth, Paul agai 
fail : For tte unbeliev.ny hufland is sanctified by the wife ; ap 
- the unbelieving wife is sanctified: by the hufband ; ELSE WE 
YOUR CHILDREN UNCLEAN, BUT NOW ARE THEY HOLY.*= 
‘The terms, unclean and 4oly, cannot in this, nor in any othe 
paflage of fcripture, intend i//egitimate and legitimate. No 
¢an it be fuppofed, that the holinefs ‘of children, arifing fron 

* Rom. x. 16, 1 Cop. wii. 14. . a 


{ ‘a7 )) 


f cir conneftion with believing parents, is that of the heart. 
But it muft be a holinefs in regard to the vifible fign of God’s 
covenant, and to their conneCtion with the church. 

" Direétly purfuant to this idea, the Angel of the Lord faid to 


= 


Cornelius, Send and call for Simon, who shall tell thee words, 
bereby thou and att THY House shall be saved. The A- 
poftles put the feal of the covenant not only upon believers, 
putalfo upon their households. They baptized Lydia and Zer 
Pousebold ;—the jailor, and all bis siraisway ;—and Stephanus 
and fis housebold. Moft evidently, they baptized Lousebolds om 

ecount of the vifible faith ofthe bead. It was Lydia’s heart 
which the Lord opened, and hence the faid, If ye have judged 
Me, not my houfehold, faithful unto the Lord, abide bere. 
How evidently was her bousebold baptized, on account of ber 
faith? And whether they were infants or adults, is wholly 
jmmaterial —To the Jailor, Paul faid, Believe on the Lord 

Fesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and tHyY novse. On 
‘account of bis faith, all bis were baptized straitway; for the 
‘promise was unto him, and tohis children. And 4e rejoiced, 
(He believing in God with, or throughout, all bis bouse.* 


| In fuchcomplete union are the preaching and pra€tice of the 
'Apofiles, to eftablifh the continuance of the anciently inftituted, 
‘govenant relation between believing parents and their chil- 
‘dren. The plain import and uniform language of fcripture 
farnifh, beyond denial, the higheft degree of moral certainty, 
‘that the Apoftles did apply the feal of the covenant to the feed 
'ef believers, and thus place them in their former conneCtion 
with the church. Is the conclufion, then, groundlefs and pre- 

lature ;—rather, is it not undeniable and irrefiflible, that the 
feriptures fully imply the continuance of this right? Is it not 
alfo a fa&t, that the Gentiles are grafted into the fame church, 
the fame olive-irce from which the unbelieving Jews were 
broken off? Isit not truth, that with the ancient church, the 
Gentiles are joint heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of 
‘the fame promises in Christ? Is not the evidence complete, 
‘that under the former and the prefent difpenfation, the church 
js the fame ;—the covenart, the fame ;—the promife, the fame ; 
‘and the folemn connection between believers and their feed, the 
fame? Wherefore, is it not undeniable, that as believers did 
Pforetime, fo they do now, hold the facred right and the ineftt- 


| @ A@s xi. 14. and avi. 15; 31,3. 


A oe FP 


mable privilege of the feal of the covenant for their child 
Verily; to deny this, is to demolifh the church of God! 
‘deny this, is to annul all the promifes in the covenant of 
and forever te feparate parents and children, whom God 
Mok facredly, joined together ! 


“3. The feriptures furnith decisive Lroof, to confirm the pre. 
fent right of believing parents, °° * = Pen al 


If infpiration give affurance, that circumcifion and baptifm 
are of ‘the fame import; and that baptifm under ‘the New 
‘Feflament, takes the place of circumcifion under the Old, the 
evidence to confirm the privilege of believers, mufl be acknow 
ledged plenary and decifive. Of all this, however, infpiration 
- gives full affurance. | 3 a 
But let us here obferve, renewedly, the important diftin Mio) 1 
hetween the rite or ceremony, and the substance, or meaning, 
of the feal of circumcifion. ‘The fubftance and whole vir 
of the feal were the aflurance, which God gave the perfon, of 
his intereft in the bleflings of the covenant. The rite, or ce- 
‘ remony was only the outward manner of applying the feal, and 
in itfelf comprifed no virtue. For the fons of Ifhmael, though 
‘they were ¢ircumcifed, yet as they were not included in he 
covenant, derived no benefit from the rite. So, rejected for 
- unbelief, the Jews, who {till practife circumcifion, receive no 
_bleflings with the ceremony. ‘The virtue of the feal laid, in 


conveyed the promife. ‘Lhis promife, and a feal of the 
nant, he might have fecured to his people, as well under 
- other form, orceremony. ‘The difufe of the rite of circ 
cifion, does therefore leave, in full virtue and in unabated op 
"ration, the fubftance of the feal, and all the bleffings of the 
venant. ‘The principle muft be conceded, that any difpe 


ve 


+ 
Fz, 


i. ) ERS ee sy 

¢ fubjeéts, of the covenant. Upon the moft rational prins 
ciples, therefore, baptifm may, and in reality does, hold the 
place of circumcifion. 


Let us trace the famenefs of their import, and notice the 

allertions of fcripture. 

__ Formerly, circumcifion, as a rite, was in part; the expreffion, 
at perfons were initiated into the vifible church, and covenant 

of God. Now, baptifm, as a rite, is in part, thé expreffion, that 

perfons are initiated into the vifible church, and covenant of 

grace. In this refpect, baptifm an{wers to the ancient feal. 


. ‘Circumcifion was a mark of folemn dedication to God; for 
hone could embrace it, but as a token of fidelity between God 
andthem. Baptifm is a mark of the fame thing. For they 


who are baptized, ate baptized into the nanie of God. 


_ Circumcifion and baptifm, as embiems or signs, reprefent 
holiness of heart. To VMrael it was faid, Crrcumcrse, there- 
a the fore/kin of your HEARTS, and be no more stiff-neck- 
ed ;—ye uncircumcised IN HEART and ears,—ye do always re- 
sist the Holy Ghost. Alfo, The Lord thy God will cincum- 
CIsE thine HART, and ihe beart of thy seed, to LOVE THE 
Lorp tny Gop, with ALL THINE HEART, AND WITH ALL 
THY sour. ‘Thefe expreffions can fignify nothing lefs than 
the necellity, that the depraved affections of their hearts fhould 
be cut off; and that their hearts, being circumcifed, would 
be holy, and love the Lord their God fupremely. ‘They 
eftablifh the fentiment, that circumcifion was not merely 2 
Dloody, fiefhly ordinance, but one which had an immediate 
refpect to the inner man, to holinefs of heart,—Setting this 
truth beyond doubt, Paul faith, Nerrner és that circumcision, 
whith is outward in the flesh; but circumctson is of the 
HEART, IN THE spirit, and not in the letter.—Baptifm alfo, 
Yeprefents newnefs of life, or holinets of heart ; Except, faid 
Chrift to the Mafter of Ifrael, Except a man be Born oF wa- 
TER, and of the Spirit, be cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
Being born of water is the outward emblem of the inward 
chang. , or of being born by the Spirit., So teacheth the Apof- 
tle; By bis mercy he saved us, by the WASHING OF REGENE- 
RaTion,.and RENEWING of the Hory Guost. Buried with 
him in wartism ;—tbhat we also should walk in NEWNESS OF 
LirE, ‘Thus certain it is, that the outward baptifm,. or the 


e 


(40) a, 
i of regeneration, is the vifible sign of the renewing of 
tlie Holy Ghost, and of newness, or holinels of life. Thus ce 
tain it is, that circumcifion and baptifm plainly reprefent h 
linefs of heart, and that the latter takes the place of the forme 


The bloody rite of circumcifion evidently referred to th 
_ evil of fin, and to the neceflity of the fhedding of blood f 
pardon, In baptifm, is reprefented the neceflity of cleanfing, 
even by the d/ood of Chrilt, In reference then, to the bivod of 
sprinkling, to the great atonement, circumcifion is fucceeded 
by baptifm. ¥ 
Circumcifion was alfo a seal of the righteoufnefs of fait 
‘The Apoftle faith concerning Abraham, that e received if 
sign of circumcision, a SEAL of the RIGHTEOUSNESS oF TH 
FaitH which he had, before he was circumcifed. The only 
Fighteoufnefs, on account of which Abraham, or any believe: 
has ever been juflified, is the righteoufnefs of Chrift. This’ 
he embraced; this all believers embrace; and, by this, ar 
they juitified. But of this righteoufnefs, Paul declareth, cit 
cumcifion was a seal, or confirmation. Baptifm is now 
seal of the same righteousness. For, faith the Apoflle, Repen 
and be BA¥11ZED every one of you, in the name of Fesu 
Christ, FOR THE REMIsSIoN of sins ;—-and as many of yo 
as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST, HAVE PUT ON Cras: 
Of the fame faith, of the fame righteoufnefs, of the fame jak 
tification, of which circumcifion was formerly the feal, baptili 
is now the feal. ) ia 


When God confirmed his covenant with Abraham, he gave 
him circumcifion as the sofen, or feal of his fidelity, in beftow 
ing all the bleflings of the covenant ; and by receiving the t 
ken, the father of believers promifed fidelity in obeying a 
the divine requirements. Baptifm has, in this refpeét, come 
in the place of the former feal; and is, manifeftly, a token 6 
the fame mutual engagements. For, among the three, whie 


mA 


bear record on earth, as tukens, the water is one. Like ¢ 
eumcifion, baptifm is a feal of all that is comprifed in the co 
venant. re 
That baptifm is of the fame import with circumcifion, and 
has taken the place of it in the church of God, we are aflured 
“by two decifive paflages of fcripture.* 


® Rom. ivy. 11, 12, Gol. ii. 10-12, >» 


maa oD 


_In one, infpiration declares of Abraham ;—He received the 
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
be had, yet being uncircumcised; and for this, as\ one exprefs 
purpole, 2hat be might be the FaTHER of CIRCUMCISION {to 
c. who are not of the circumcision only ; but who also walk in 
the steps of that faith of our father Abrabam, which be had, 
being yet uncircumcised. Having taught that Abraham was the 
conitituted father of all them that believe, and of the fpiritual 
bleflings which believers to the end of the world receive, the 
Apolile carefully fubjoined, that -he was alfo the Sather of cir- 
cumcision, even to thofe of the lateft ages, who are not circum- 
cifed, but walk in the fleps of his faith. But in what fenfe 
of fuch high importance, can he be the Sather of circumcision 2 
As already proved, circumcifion was a sEaL of that rigbteous- 
ness of faith, which the father #f believers had, before he was 
circumcifed; and he is the raruer of this sear of the righ- 
teousness of faith, to all who walk in the fteps of his faith, to 
the end of the world. And to them, though not circumcifed, 
he tranfmits, with the other bleflings of the covenant, the sion 
and the seal of the covenant. So that, in the fame fenfe, in 
which he is the father of believers, he is alfo the father of the 
seal of that righteoufnefs, which is embraced by faith. The 
feal of the covenant is, therefore, declared to be as extenfive 
and perpetual, as the-bleffings of the covenant. Accordingly, 
his natural defcendants by promife, inherited the feal from 
him. And from him, as their conflituted father, the converted 
Gentiles receive the fame feal. But circumcifion, the firft 
form of the feal, is difeontinued ; ftill, Abraham is the father of 
circumcilion, or of the feal’ of the covenant, to the lateft period: 
The Apoftle himfelf has thus drawn the conclufion, as certain 
and unavoidable, that the difufe of the ancient form of the feal, 
does mot alter the feal;—that baptifm, the only ordinance’ 
fuppofed by any to have come in the place of circumcifion, is 
the very fubftance of the feal, does, in reality, take the place 
of circumcifion ; and that, as Abraham was the father of cir- 
cumcifion to his defcendants, fo he is to us, and to the lateft 
believers, the conftituted father of baptism, the prefent form 
of feal of the covenant. ‘This is decifive proof, that the for- 
mer feal, and the prefent, are of the fame import; and that the 
prefent is in the place of the former. 


The other pailage, decifively to the fame point, is this; 2 


a —_ 
fet 


he See 


Gre’ complete, in Chrift. In whom alio ye are CIRCUMCISED 
with the circumcision made without bands, in purrrn 
THE BODY OF THE SINS OF THE FLESH, by the ‘cir 
sion of Curist; buried with him in paprism, wherein 
are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of 
‘who raised bim from the dead.—This is a plain aceount of sf 
ri'ual circumcifion, and of spiritual baptifm. Tobe circum 
cifed with the cirenmeifion of Chrift, made without hands, an 
confifting in putting off the body ‘of the fins of the fleth, is 4 
same thing, as to be buried with Chrift in fpiritual bay in 
and to be raifed by that faith, which isthe ffe&t of the oper 
tion of God, Spiritual cireumcifion and fpiritual baptifm are | 
therefore, of the fame: import. ‘This ‘was, undoubtedly, the | 
idea, received by the Coloffians, to whom the Apoftle direéted | 
this paflage ; ‘and from it, no dther idea can ‘be received by u: 
‘The conélufion, then, is obvious and undeniable, that exter, 
circumcifion’ and escternal baptifm are of the fame ree 
that baptifm holds the fame place in the church, un 

fent difpenfation, with circumcifion under the'former, 


In this important truth, are not you, my brethren,, by th 
weight of plenary evidence, fully confirmed? * Certainly, th 
coincidence of thefe two rites, in all the important particu 
is not accidental. It exprelfes, fully, the defign of Omnifcienc 
Than the prefent,, there could not have been, from the na at 
of the rites, a.more: perfeét coincidence. Than the prefen 
there could not be a difplay of more complete defign. Dos 
-not this coincidence alfo draw. after it, unavoidably, the right « 
Tafant Baptifm? Indeed, many, who deny this right,. hav 
frankly acknowledged, that, if cireumcifion and. baptifm. ai 
of the fame import, then, as believers did formerly enjoy th 
privilege of applying the feal of the covenant to their childrer 
they muft ftill enjoy the. fame. privilege under. the gofpel, ar 
have a full right to baptifm for them. Scripture, howevei 
is ‘decifive, that. their import is.the fame. - Has it no ‘more 
ever, been fhown,. that under the former, and the prefent, dif 
penfation, the church is the fame ;—the covenant, the fame ;— 
the promifes, the fame ;—and the conne@ion. between. belies . 
ing parents and their feed, the fame ? Does: it not fully ap. 
pear alfo, that the prefent feal of the covenant, though altere 
in form from the ancient feal, continues, for fubflance, th 
fame to this hour; and; without a fyllable in {cripture: te th 
contrary, has reference to the fame fubjeGs,—-to believing pas 


F az 


C 43 ) 

ents, and to their children? Can-the deduéion, then, be fup- 
refled, that the evidence to fupport the right of Infant Baptifm 
s plenary and decifive? Nay, can: our aftonifhment be fup- 
refled, that any perfons, pretending to candid and careful 
flection, fhould deny this right ;—fhould, of their own accord, 
jet their own children from the feal of the covenant, and 
eave them undiftinguifhed from thofe, who live without God 
ind without hope in the world! But this invaluable privilege, 
lor which they have fo little efteem, we may hold mott facred, 
ypon the full authority of God’s word. And in this view, no 
man, but in the face of God himfelf, can attempt to take it 
rom us. 


Such being the full and decifive inftru@ions of {cripture, we 
ire in expeCtation of finding, that Infant Baptifm has been in 
general practice, throughout the Chriflian church.’ Hence, 


4. Teftimonies, well authenticated, give affurance, that In- 
fant Baptifm was univerfally praétifed by the church in the 
ime of the Apoftles, and for feveral centuries after them. 


_ Although this right of infants is not to be maintained by the 
evidence of hiftory alone, yet if the teftimonies of the fathers 
in the firft ages of Chriftianity are united-to fupport this, as an 
abfervance of the church, they will eftablith, beyond all reafon- 
able. denial, the tran{miffion of this right, from Chri and the 
Apoftles. | 


_ As the conceffion is general, that the baptifm of infants hag 
been prattifed for feveral of the laft centuries, our prefent in- 
quiry is into the practice of the church in the time of the Apofs 
les, and of their immediate fucceffors. 


~ Grateful muft it be to the Chriftian world, that more than | 
a. century ago, a complete hiftory of Infant Baptifm was pub-_ 

lifhed by Dr. Wall, a learned and correét hiftorian. Such 
were the accuracy and merits of this work, that in a general 
tonvention, holden February gth, 1805, the clergy of England. 
“ ordered, that the thanks of this houfe be given to Dr, Wall, 
“for the learned and exceilent book, he hath lately written, 
“concerning Infant Baptifm.” Alfo Mr. Whifton, a man of 
extenfive learning, and one. of the denomination of Baptifts, 
declared'to many of them, in a public addrefs, “ Phat Dr. 
“ Wall's hiftory of Infani Baptifm, as 20. fac s, appeared ta. 


Ca) ay 


“ him; moft accurately done, and might be* depended “on’ by 
“ the Baptifts themfelves.”—From this hiftory, a few’teftimo- 
nies, touching the fubjeé&t before us, arenow to be prefented. | 
After all his affiduous refearcheg our hiftorian gives the re- 
{ult of the various teftimonies, in thefe words: .“ For the first 
** four hundred years” after Chrift, “ there appears only one man, 
‘« ‘Tertulian, who advifed the delay of Infant Baptifm in fome 
cafes; and one Gregory, who did, perhaps, praétife fuch 
‘ delay in the cafe of his own children; but no fociety. of 
men fo thinking, or fo practifing ; or any one man faying, 
it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next sever 
sundred years, there is not fo much as one man to be found, 
* who either {poke for, or praétifed any fuch delay, but alll 
** the contrary. And when, about the year 1130, one fe& a- 
““ mong the Waldenfes, or Albigenfes declared againft the 
baptizing of infants, as being incapable of falvation, the main 
‘body of that people rejeGted their opinion; and they, whe 
£ ftill held that opinion, quickly dwindled away, and difa = 
“" peared ; there being no more perfons heard of, holding that 
tenet, until the rifing of the German Antipeedobaptifts,” of 
Baptifts, “in the year 1522.” sue 


Confidering the practice of Infant Baptifm, through the long 
period, from the fourth to the sixteenth century, as univerfally 
obferved, except by a few who foon dwindled away, and fome 
who denied all baptifm by water; we are brought to a care 
examination of the fubjeA&, during the firsi-four centuries. - 
But through this period, fo complete was the union of all Chrif 

_tians in this point, that publications direétly upon this fubje&, 
either controverfial, or hiftorical were needlefs. The ace 
counts of the fathers are, ef courfe, detached and occafional, 
Yet they are fuficiently numerous and decifive, to carry full 
conviction, that in their day, the church uniformly: gave bap- 
tifm to the infants of believers. 2 


About 300 years after the Apoftles, or 400 after the birth 
of Chri, the Pefagian Controversy, upon the fubje& of Or 
gimal Sin, was commenced, continued long, and engaged the 
greatelt abilities of the age. On one fide, Pelagius and his 
adherents contended, that infants were born free from ¢ I 
finful impurity.—On the other fide, Auftin with his adherent 
urged againfi them the defign of Infant Baptifm. « “ Infants 
are,” faid Auftin, “ hy ai/ Christians, acknowledged to ftang 


; € 45 ) 

¢ in need of baptifm, which muft be for original fin, fince they 

have no other. If they have no fin, why are they then bap- 

‘ tized, according to the rules of the church, for the forgive- 
‘nels of fins? Why are they wathed in the laver of regene- 
‘tion, if they have no pollution?” By this argument, the 
elagians felt themfelves prefled, and deeply perplexed. But 
jad the baptifm of infants not been praétifed by the church, 
hey might, with eafe, have aflerted this, denied the right, and 
reed themfelves from the whole argument, by which they were 
o deeply embarrafled. Was this, however, the method which 
hey adopted ? Was this their expedient, tofecure tothemfelves 
) final triumph ?—Indeed, their conduét was completely the 
everfe. When fome reported, that Pelagius, by denying the 
ollution of infants, denied baptifm to thew alfo, he, in his own 
indication, declared; ‘* Men flander me, as if I denied the 
* facrament of baptifm to infants, and did promife the kingdom 
* of heaven to any perfon without the redemption of Chrift = 
+ but I never beard of any, not even the mast impious beresic, that 
‘ would fay fuch a thing of infants.” In oppofition to the 
uccefs of his own argument, and of his favourite fentiment, 
his man did, thus plainly declare, that he was flandered by 
hofe, who intimated, that he denied the baptifm of infants, 
nd that it was the univerfal pra@tice of the church; or that 
¢ had never heard of any man, no, not even the moft impious 
leretic, who denied this facrament tothem. But at this peri- 
id, was Infant Baptifm, as fome would intimate. generally de- 
fied; and flill, had Pelagius, who had travelled into all parts of 
he Chriftian world, and well knew the general flate of all the 
hurches, had he never heard of one, who denied it ?—Thefe 
ircumftances, duly confidered, muft be viewed as almoft abfo- 
ute proof, that, at this early period, Infant Baptifm was psac- 
ifed throughout the Chriftian church. 


About 280 years after the Apoftles, Auftin afferted in his 
yritings, “‘ That Infant Baptifm is one of thofe practices, which 
‘ was not inftituted by any council, but has ahvays been in 
‘ ufe.—The whole church of Chrift have conftantly held, that 
‘ infants are baptized, for the forgivenefs of fin.” He adds, 
‘ That he had never read, or beard ra any Christian, catholic, 
0 or sectary, who beld otherwise.” 


About 270 years after the Apoftolic age, Hierome, Chryfof- 
om and Ambrofe touched upon this fubjeét, in their writ- 
ngs. ven fays; “ If infants be not baptized,, the fin of 


Cae 7 } 
“ omitting their baptifm is laid to the parents’ charge 
Chrifoliom fays;. “ That perfons may be baptized; either ai 
‘t their enfoncys in middie age, or in oldage; and that infant 
*t were baptized.”’ Ambrofe declares; “ That Infant Bap 
#. tilm was pragtifed in his day, and in the days of the Apa 
*,tles.”. Thus, ini the third century after the Apoftles, thef 
writers {peak of the baptifm of Infants as hot inttoduced im 
their age, but as apragtice, which had been uniformily obfers 
ed by the church, Weare hence certain, that’ this “practic 
prevailed, earlier than the third century. ty the heey 


_ The second after the Apoftles is, therefore, to. be examinec 
Not far from a 150 years after them, Cyprian, the Bifhop  ¢ 
Carthage, and a diftinguifhed martyr, fubmitted, te 2 counel 
ef 66 bifhops, or minifters, this queftion ;—* Whether, an infan 
“* might be baptized before it was eight days old?’ Upon this 
queition the council was unanimous, that infants might be bar 
tized before they were eight daysald. In their reply to Fid 
the Bifhop by whom the queftion was firft propofed, they writ 


and practice, could not this council look back through. a period 
of half the length, and afcertain the views and proceedings « 
the Apoftles concerning infants?’ Is it not unqueftionabl 
that fome of the more aged of the fixty-fix bifhops, had feen an 
converfed with many. who had enjoyed perfonal acquaintane 
with the Apoftles and their pragtice? At leaft; this council o 
Carthage muft have certainly known, whether Infant Baptifi 
was practifed by the Apoftles, or were an innovation after thei 
day. But had it been an innovation, it could not, at this earl 


‘a 4 47) 

duty and with unanimous voice, they declare, That infan's 
dy be baptized before they are eight days old. ‘Either all the 

mbers of this council, and all the fathers, (for with them, all 
he fathers unite,) were confederated to fupport a known error 
r elfe, the praGtice of Infant Baptifm defcended ro them from 
he Apoltles.. To believe, however, that they were: fo confes 
€rated, requires a ftretch of unchriftian fevérity, to which no 
aan can extend himfelf£ The tranfaftions of this council, 
hich Cyprian fiated at length in an epittle, written by his own 
and, about 2150 years after the Apoftles, are, thereforé,a-clea¥ 
ad invincible teftimony- to the praétice of Infant Baptifm in 
cir age. “And of hiftory, ‘There is no frece,” fays our hife 
rian, “ in all ansiquity, that can be proved more certainly to be 
genuine, than this.” OLE (See Tad ss A 


Although we might here reft our enquiries, in full convi@tion, 
lat the baptifm of infants was inculeated by the Apoftles, and 
uiformly practifed by the primitive Chriitians,- yet we have 
ther teftimonies both explicit and. weighty. The evidence ig 
lear, that Origin defcended of Chriftian parents; that he was 
orm about 85 years after the Apoftles ;—that he was aman of 
xtenfive reading, and travelled into thofe countries, -wheré 
hriftianity was firft and moft generally prevalent —This many 
ho was 17 years old when his father fuffered martyrdom, 
wit be acknowledged to have been in a capacity to afcertaim 
ly the mind of the Apoftles, and the pra€tice of the church, 
oncerning Infant: Baptifm.. And thus faith Origin: “ Infants 
_by the ufage of the church, are baptized.—Infants are bap- 
‘tized for the remiffion of fin:—The church had a tradition, 
“or command from the Apoftles to give baptifm to infants; 
for they to whom the divine myfteries were conimitted knew, 
that there is in all perfons, the natural pollution of fin, which 
ought to be wafhed away by water and the Spirit.” This 
flimony, my brethren, is full and incontrovertible. For we 
te confirained to believe, that by Origin fuch affertions would 
ot be fent forth to the public, unlefs true. We are conftrain- 
d to believe, that had any in his time denied Infant Baptiim, 
ley would not have been filent until- they had made it appear, 


lat the church received no fuch command from the Afpoftles, 
id obferved no fiich practice. But Origin’steftimony ftands, 
ithout a word from any of the fathers in contradiion, and in 
lits weight, is tranfmitted to us, that infants were baptized in’ 
mpliance with Apoftolic command, — 

Sat pen se a ee pe 


( 48 )) 


A little more than a 100 years irom the Apoftles, Turtul 
and about 150 years after him, Gregory, tellified indir« 
but fully, to the praétice of Infant Baptifm. ‘Thefe two 
our hiftorian declares, as in our firft quotation were the only per. 
fons to be found during the firft four centuries, who fo much 
as adyifed the delay of baptizing infants. ‘Turtulian, though 
efteemed a man of learning and veracity, was extravagantly 
fond of peculiarities, and for herefy was finally ejected from 
the church. He advifed to delay the baptifm of children, until 
they had paffed the temptations of youth. Such delay Gregory 
obferved refpe&ting his own children. But they both fpeak 
of Infant Baptifm as univerfally praétifed. ven their advice 
for a delay draws the conclufion after it, infallibly, that infants 
were baptized. Otherwife, there had been no occafion for fue 
advice, "7 


Thus are we aflured, that Infant Baptifm was not introduce 
in the fecond century from the Apojtles. For all the fathers 
mention it.as univerfally obferved, not only in»this century 
but even at an earlier period.—The evidence during the fir 
century, therefore, merits our attention.—But in fo early 
period, the Chriftians, as they muft have known fully the min 
of the Apoitles, had no ground for controverfy, or for leavin 
their teftimony upon the fubje&.. Of courfe, any thing, whic 
remains, undenied by all the fathers, and from whicliithis pra 
tice can be fairly inferred, muft be viewed as evidence, in th 
prefent cafe, fufficient and decifive. Such evidence we hav 


After the Apoftles 67 years, Irenzeus in his writings fpol 
upon this fubjec&t. ‘(his Irenzeus was born before the death 
of St. John, lived in Afia where the Apoftle refided, and was 
afterward bifhop of Lions in France. He faw and converte 
with fome who had feen Chrift; he was acquainted with, an 
had attended upon the preaching of Polycarp, who was the di 
ciple of St John, and probably that angel of the church if 
Smyrna, whom the Apottle fo highly approves in the fecor 
chapter of Revelations. Being well acquainted with Polycar 
living fo near the Apoftles, where St. John lived and died, Ire 
nzus could not be ignorant of the apoflolic pra€tice concerning 
Infant Baptifm. According to the cuftom of the fathers, f 
{pake of baptifm by the thing fignified in the ufe of water ar 
called it regeneration. But that he intended the external bap. 
tifm of infants, when he fpoke ‘of their regeneration, is certail 
from his own explanation. In re‘erence to fome, who had 


“€ 49°) 7 

en baptized, he fays, “They are regenerated .in the fame 
"Way of regeneration in which we have been regenerated ; 

for they are washed with water, if the name of the F ather, 
- and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. For Chrift fays, 
Unlefs ye be regenerated, you cannot enter into the kings 
‘dom of heaven.” Speaking of Chrift, Irenzeus fays; “Ha 
‘came to fave all perfons; all, I: mean, who by him are re- 
‘generated, (or baptized,) unto God; Infants and itile ones ¢ 
-and*children, and youths, and elder perfons. ‘Therefore he 
went through the feveral ages 5 for infants being made an 
infant, that he might fanGify infants; to little enes, he was 
made a little one.” —'Lhis teflimony proves, undeniably, that 
le baptifm of infants, as an important duty, was praCtifed in: 
€ days which fucceeded, immediately, to the Apoftolic age. » 


Juftin Martyr, who was born about 4, and wrote about 46 
ars after the Apoftle John, obferves in one of his Apologies 
rthe Chriftians, that, ‘* Several perfons among us, of 69 or 
72 years old, who were made difciples to Chrift from their 
childhood, do continue uncorrupt.” ‘Thefe perfons muft 
we been made difciples in the days of the Apofiles, and muft 
terward have witnefled their practice. From them, Juftin, 
eir acquaintance, had opportunity to derive full affurance 
mcerning,the Apoftles’ treatment of infants, and their views 
baptifm in general. With this advautage he declares, that | 
ptifm and circumcifion are of the fame import, and of courle 
¢ former mutt be applied, as the latter formerly was, to in- 
ats. Says Juflin, “« We have not received the carnal, but 
{piritual circumcision, by baptism. And it is allowed to all 
persons to receive it in the fame way.” More than this, from 
¢ age and circumftances in which he lived, we could not ex- 
&. The teflimonies then, of Irenzus and Juftin, and equal 
idence from the writings of Clemens and Hermes, contem- 
raries with Paul, and mentioned in his Fpifiles, have, with- 
t contradiction from one of the fathers, defcended to us, and 
¢ {trong and invincible. 


The evidence is already clear and plenary, that the pratice 
Infant Baptifm was not introduced in the third century afi 
rthe Apoitles ; for it is repeatedly mentioned, as univerfally 
evalent in the fecond. Nor was it introduced in the second 
Mtury after them; for it is mentioned by undeniable and full 


plication, as univerfally beaent in the first. Certainly, 


¥ 


( 50 ) oaths & ae | 


¥ 
ore’ Dy Oia 8 en 


then, as an innovation, it was introduced in the firft centi 
without a ftraggle, and unknown to the whole world; or elf 
as Origin, Chryfoftom, and Ambrofe affirm, the church had 
Sg ap or tradition fromthe Apoftles, to give baptifm tol 
ants. | os Zz 


That fuch an order was given, and that the church practile 
in conformity is.certain, from the exprefled and general beli 
of the fathers, that baptif{m comes in the place of circumcifi 
ard is of the fame ufe.— As before quoted, Juflin faid, “ \ 
«: have not received the carnal, but fpiritual circumcision, t 
“ baptism.” + Dot thou delay, faid-Bafil, “ the circumeisi 
“ made without hands, which is performed in baptism ?? 1 
belief, from the evidence we have already confidered, that ba 
tifm takes the place of circumcifion, the fathers mnft have 4) 
plied it to infants. ‘This conclufion, no man can doubt. A 
cordingly, Chryfoftom faid; “ One that is in the very beg 
<< ning of his age, may receive this circumcifion made witho, 
“+ hands.” Ce SO aa 


In dire&t confirmation of the correétnefs of all the precedir 
teflimonies, we have invincible proof from feveral hiftoric 
Accounts, written at an early period, and yet extant, ofall # 
different: religious fefts and prattices, which prevailed in # 
fir(t ages of Chriftianity. Irenaeus wrote his account 76 yea 
after the Apoftles. Auftin and Philaftruis wrote about 2% 
years after them. Philaftruis, who created a diflin€tion im 
{e&ts: for every little difference of opinion, ftated the who 
number of fefts at a1oo. ‘Theodoret wrote a learned and ve 
particular account of herefies, about 330 years after the Ape 
~-tles. "Thefe writers are full.and exprefs; fome of them d 
clare, they had named all the feéts they had ever heard of 
the world, fpeak particularly of thofe who deny all B 
tifm by water, and exprefsly flate the different ways, in whit 
water was applied in baptifm. But in all their accoug 
not the moft diflant hint is to be found, that amy, who belie 
ed in any kind of baptifm by water, did deny the practice? 
Infant Baptifm. No fe&, no, not a man is named. But I ) 
there been any, who had denied this, the denial of it, fineé 
“was generally pragtifed in the church, would have been a. 
culiarity fufficient-to conftitute a diflin& feet, and muft ha 
been mentioned by thefe writers. But thefe writers, and 
the men of antiquity, had not the leaft knowledge of any tu 
fect. Evidence like this muft carry convi€tion to every mil 


i ae €. 5e +) 


inlefs thielded by the unchriflian armour of obflinaey and pre- 


She 


1dcice. 


To all this may be added, as an argument of importance, 
ledu&tion from the silence of fcripture hiflory, and of the 
s of the Apoftolic age. The Jews, who were exceedingly 
Macious of their defcent from Abraham, and of the relation 
{their children to the covenant ;—who fuffered none, unlefs 
ircumcifed, to become incorporated with them ;—who were 
tchful and jealous of every change from their ancient order, 
ad of whatever feemed unfriendly to their diftin@tion and pri- 
ileges ;—who, after the eflablifhment of Chriftianity, oppofed 
j¢admiffion of the Gentiles into the church without circumci- 
jon, until a council was convened at Jerufalem, and declared, 
fat it feemed good unto the Holy Gholt, and to them, not to 
ty this unneceflary burden upon the Gentile brethren ;—the 
ews, fome of whom were implacable enemies, and urged every 
pollible objeGion againft the gofpel ;—the Jews, had the Apof- 
jes fevered children from their uniform conneétion with the 
qurch and from the feal of the covenant, would have founded 
ais innovation far and near, and have viewed it an unanfwer- 
le objection againft the gofpel. But did they ever alledge, 
fat Chriflianity excluded their children from their former 
anding, or curtailed their privileges? Did the Apofiles ever 
ftempt to anfwer this objection, to remove this flumbling- 
lock? In the whole fcriptures, not a word upon the fubjeé 
recorded. The objection was never urged. But it would 
ave been prefled, had not the Chriftian difpenfation preferv- 
fd and fecured all the privileges and bleffings of children, 
A this inftance, the filence of f{cripture utters a language, which 
a but be heard, and muit fecure belief. 

| On the whole, have we not, my brethren, ample and decifive 
Widence to fupport the right and duty of Infant Baptifin? 
Muft not all the objections urged againft either the right or 
| elign of this inflitution, be merely apparent, circumftantial, 
md really groundlefs? (Can we defire, could we have evi- 


lence more complete? Indeed, this evidence is fall, that you 
hay receive and firmly hold, in all their extent and confolation, 
he gracious words of the Apoflle,—Tuez promise 1s’ uNnTOo. 
jou, and to YouR CHILDREN, and to all that are Gfar of; 


yen as many as the Lord our God shall call. 


y 
ww ; 
io in ohne : 
: 


4 5. ie ges inca hh ¥) 
abies oa aN 4 a 


: SERMON III. 


ia 
‘The Destcn of the Baptism of Iran. 


_  —Also, the Move of BarTism. 


“ 


—n 3 
4 


I N purfuance of the method of treating the sata fubjed, 
‘an attempt fhall be made: 


Ill. To illuftrate the important defign of applying the feal 
of the covenant to the feed of believers; or to thew the uie 
of Infant Baptiim. 


_ The article before us, my brethren, is by many viewed ex- 
_ceedingly difficult, and even incapable of illuftration. But 2 
difficulty to afcertain the defign of the baptifin of infants, could 
‘not any more difprove zhe duty, than the ignorance of Abrahara 


concerning the defign of God’s requirement that he fhould 


leave the land of his nativity, or offer his only fon, could prove, 
that obedience tothe divine command was not his duty. Nog 
can the diverfity of opinions upon this point among thofe, who 
praciife Infant Baptifm, go any farther to difprove the duty, 
than a diverfity of fentiments concerning the defign of Chrift’s 
death can prove, that his death was needlefs.—Nor, indeed, are 
all the high toned queftions, which are thrown out againft this 
ordinance, the leaft evidence againft she duty.—Often is it 
afked, of what ufe is the baptifm of infants? From it, do they 
derive any benefit? Are not baptized children as irreligious, 
as the unbaptized? ‘Yo fuch queftions, generally the fruit of 
a moft unreafonable defign, let it fuffice to reply by the inqui- 
ries; Of what ufe was circumcifion? Of what ufe is it to 
offer prayers for infants? Of what ufe was it for parents to 
bring their children to Chrift? Or for him to lay his hands 
on them, and blefs them? Are parents and the church un- 
faithful to their children, or do fome of their feed grow up 
*« baptized infidels ?? And do not too many, even of the pro- 
feflors of religion, become as irreligious asthe heathens? But 
if the Jews faw little benefit in circumcifing their fons at eight 
days old, ftill this, as their duty, was rendered indifpenfible 
by virtue of the divine command. If we fhould be unable 


rey CARE RENEE. Ur eR SS a 


to difcover the full benefit of the baptifm of infants, yet the 
command, given to Abraham and tranfmitted without repeal 
and with additional confirmation to this‘moment, renders this 
duty of believing parents moft certain and folemn. Let the 
defign be covered with impenetrable darknefs, yet by the com.| 
mand, the practice is cloathed with undeniable and facred c a 
gation. But a careful attention to the fubjeét will tend to| 
evince that the defign of the ordinance is neither fo concealed | 
ner unknown, nor unimportant as many imagine; and alfo to, 
. Correct errors, and increafe the evidence of the duty. 


” The baptifm of infants, however, is not defigned, that in| 
the ordinance, they fhould enter atively into covenant with | 
God. ‘Though the ordinance is a covenant tranfation, yet it 
is not immediately between God and infants. Their total igs 
norance of the nature and even performance of baptifm aflure 
us, that infants have not a perfonal agency in the deed. ‘The 
tranfaction is between God and the parents. Neverthelefs the | 
tranfaGtion refpeé&ts and is about the infants. They are the ob. 
jects upon whom the tranfaction terminates. So that, although | 
they do not covenant, they are yet covenanted about. 


Nor is the baptifin of infants defigned to initiate them in o | 
the covenant of God. The feed of believers are in the cove. | 
nant dy birth. Did not the covenant with Abraham refpes | 
his fon Ifaac, years before he was born? Does not the cove. | 
nant with parents declare, that God will be a God to their | 
feed? But when does he become a God to them? Not till | 
circumcifed, or baptized ? Manifefily, from their birth, from 
the moment of union between foul and body. That children” 

_ are dornin covenant, is confirmed by the reproof of God to his 
ancient people: Thou hast taken, faid he to them, thy sons and 
thy daughters, whom thou bast Born uNTO Me, and these bast 
thou sacrificed.—Is this a small matter, that shou hast slain mx 
children. ‘Their baptifm then is not defigned to initiate in 


fants into the covenant. For in this, God has placed them by 
birth. 


Nor is it intended, that by Infant Baptifm, parents fhould 
choofe and fix the religion of their children.: In unfpeakable 
mercy, God himfelf has fo far prefcribed the religion to be 
embraced, by every perfon, as to propofe and eftablith in this, 
world, the covenant of grace. ‘Though men fhould worthip 
the Deity under different forms, yet they can worfhip him, bug 


GR ee ra 
lupon the principle of the covenant of grace only. ‘Whe pas 
rents, therefore, devote their children to God, they do no more 
: ee their religion than, God in the greateft mercy has 
ne, and requires them to dar kL hey fix neither the forms © 
of the worfhip, nor the creeds of their offspring. They bus 
exprefs, and [ix upon their children the expreflion, that the 
covenant of grace is the only ground of hope, and juftly 
claims fupreme regard. When children are informed, that 
by their parents the feal of the covenant was, according to the 
requirement of heaven, applied to them in their infancy, ought 
they not to exercife gratitude rather than regret, and to feel 
that the feal has been applied to them in the manner appointed, 
and moft completely agreeable to the mind of its divine au- 
thor? If, to defcend from parents, who provide for their tem- 
poral welfare be a blefling to children, how infinitely fuperior 
mut be the bleffing to defcend from thofe, who make an early 
furrender of their feed to God, and unite with him, to place 
them under the covenant, and in the flate which he has ap- 
pointed for them ? 


~ Nor is it, moreover, the defign of the baptifm of infants, to 
ender them complete and aétive members of the church. 
Though infants are to be baptized, yet the confequence, which 
‘many attempt to infer, will by no means follow ;—that they 
are to be brought to the ‘Table of Communion and are to take 
a part in the government and difcipline of the church. Born 
‘into a family, are infants to govern and provide for the necef. 
fities of the houfe, and not rather to be the fubjeCts of govern- 
ment and of parental care? “Though brought into the flate, 
privileges and enjoyments of a family, ftill are they not de- 
pendant and the objects of fupport, proteCtion, and guidance ? 
Though born into civil community, and heirs of Pe the privi- 
leges of a Nation, are infants capable of an ative part in the 
adminifiration of government? Until arrived at an age and 
capacity for acting a free and rational part, are they not the 
mere objects of civil proteCtion and care? After a courfe of 
trial, and at the eftablifhed age, muft they not, implicitly 
or explicitly, consent for themfelves to the laws of their go- 
-vernment, beiore they become agents of managing public 
affairs? So, born into the vifible covenant and church of 
God, or into a church state, muft not, infants be the subjecis 
of care, and not agents of direGtion? The government and 
“chief benefits of a church or complete memberfhip in a church, 


(555 )> 


muft pertain to thofe-perfons only, who voluntarily agree and 

covenant together to govern themfelves by certain rules, ; 
to improve certain privileges of the gofpel, configned excl 

ly to thofe, who thus knowingly and attively unite themfe 
together. For fuch covenant engagements, infants are incas | 
pable ; and though heirs of all the bleflings of the covenant, 

they are to be like thofe under tutors and governors, to be on y 
the objeéts of the Chriftian attention of the church.—In order 
to complete memberfhip, or to the atual pofleffion of all the 
privileges of the church, they muft arrive at a fufficient age to | 
{peak, to act, to covenant for themfelves. Thefe principles | 
are taught by reafon, and confirmed by fcripture. Though 
circumcifed, the children among the Ifraelites, in orderto en- 
joy all the privileges of the ancient church, and fully to profefs | 
religion, or in order to complete memberhhip in the Jewith body, | 


vileges:-by perfonal confent to the covenant, the Jewith nation | 
was commanded, once in feven years, and in a public, folemit 
manner, to renew their covenant with God. ‘This was a fta- | 
tute for them, throughout their generations. Thus Mofes des. | 
clared, that one important obje&t for which they fhould, every "| 
feventh year, renew their covenant, was; that THEIR CHIL. | 
DREN WHICH HAVE NOT KNOWN, .MAY HEAR and learn to”) 
Sear the Lord, your God.* In this way, by their own folemn | 
confent and engagements, children were formerly admitted | 
to a full ftanding in the church. In the fame manner only, © 
are the children of believers under the gofpel to be received — 
to complete memberfhip in the church. _ This truth deferves — 
remembrance in taking a view of the real defign of Infant 
Baptifm. To which view we now proceed: i 


r. Infant Baptifm is the ordinance in which parents make ” 
a folemn dedication of their children to God, and to the care” 
of the church. Circumcifion, applied to Ifrael, was a mark of © 
confecration to God. Without difpute, it was a mark by ~ 
which they were diflinguifhed from the other nations of the — 
earth, and by which they were defignated as the peculiar peo- 
ple of Jehovah. When parents received circumcifion, they © 
expreffed a full dedication of themfelves to the Lord, and to hi: i | 
people. When they fet this mark upon their children, they he 


4 


* See Deut. xxxi. 9.--13, and xxix. 10, 11. Where a full account of the mame 


ner and defign of their renewing covenant is prefented. f 


os By ; 

refled sbeir full dedication of them to God, and to the 
endly care of his church. In the fame way, when believers * 
wre baptized into the name of the Trinity, they declare their 
sonfecration of themfelves to the ‘Sriune God, to his fervice, 
lifpofal, and glory. When they apply the famé ordinance’to 
heir feed, their defign can be nothing lefs than to make a 
complete furrendry of them to the difpofal and glory of thé 
ame merciful God, and to the care of his church. As de- 
cendants of fallen man, they dedicate them to God, hoping 
or their redemption : through the mefits of the Saviour only. 
Phey acknowledge them the gift and fpecial property of God. 
And to his care and gracious difpofal, in time and eternity, 
hey cheerfully and believingly furrender thein. 


_In this defign is thete not, my brethren, very fpecial bene: 
it? Can agreater external privilege be conferred upon chil- 
iren than to be devoted. in their tender, helplefs infancy, to 
he prayers, the future infpeétion and counfel of the church, 
nd to the gracious difpofal of their heavenly Father? Can . 
jou contemplate the immortal fouls of your beloved offspring 
is infinitely more precious than all your perifhable poffeffions, 
ind not efteem highly the opportunity of confecrating them in 
| folemn public ordinance to God, and to his people? Muft 
uot this ordinance be a fource of unfpeakable pleafure, and a 
gerpetual admonition to your fidelity? Can your hearts be 
nf{pired with a devout with like Abraham’s ;—O4 that Ishmael 
night live before thee ; or with the fpirit of Hannah confe- 
rating Samuel to the Lord, or of Jofeph and Mary going to 
the Temple to prefent the new-born Jefus unto the Lord, 
und yet not embrace with the molt grateful joy an ordinance. 
nm which you may confecrate your feed to your covenant God? 
Ever ready to fecure the good education of your children, and 
filled with love to the faints, the excellent of the earth, mutt 
you not eagerly embrace and firmly maintain the privilege of 
evoting your feed in baptifm to the prayers and guardianfhip 
of the church? If your hearts glow with love to, and confi- 
dence in your heavenly parent, with faith in the benefit of 
Chrift’s benediftion upon the children, who were brought to 
him, you can but receive with all cordiality, and as infinitely 
precious, the baptifm of your children, with which you have 
gracious affurance of Chrifi’s readinefs to receive and blefs 
thofe brought unto him, and to declare; Of such is the king- 
dom of Heaven. 
H. 


( 58 ) 

2. The. baptifm of infants is the mark eerie 
tions prefented, and enforced in the covenant upon child 
parents and the church.’ The circumeifion of infants wa 
vifible mark put upon them, expreflive oftheir obligatic 
God. When their minds opened to underftand their rel 
they faw God’s claims; that he required them to re 1 
themfelves from idolatry, to unite with his people, to é: 
and ‘obey him as their Lord. The baptifm of infants is 
mark put upon them of the fame obligations, of the fami 
requirements of their God.—The covenant, enjoini 
upon parents the duty of circumcifing their feed, ‘ret 
ed them, not only in general terms to walk before 
and be perfe&t, but exprefsly, to difcharge feveral ‘mpoitl 
duties to their children. It folemnly required them to train 
up their offspring for God, by the influence of upright exam 
ple;—of a wife government ;—and of conftant feligious ns 
firu@ions. Concerning his commands, God faid to evel 
parent ; Thou shalt teach them DiL1cENTLY unto thy children | 
and shatt talk of them, when thou sittest in thy house 5 and wi | 
thou walkest by the way ; and when thou liest down, and when 
thou rises' up. Such were the obligations of parents to’ 
children. When they applied circnmcifion to them, they fa aw 
in this, their own obligations to them. For, unqueftionabl 
the duties enjoined in the covenant were fignified by thea 
of parents in circumcifing their feed. In this fenfe, fhe 
cumeifion of children was a mark to parents, of their oblig 
tions as parents, and was thus a zoken between them and | 
The baptifm of infants is now an equal mark of God’s cl 
upon parents. In this ordinance the obligations of believer 8, 
as parents, ate exprefled, enforced, and fealed by God.— re o 
the Hebrews, the circumcifion of infants was a church ordi 
nance, and a mark, that as children were incorporated. with 
them, they were laid under fpecial obligations to them. 7 To 
the church, it marked the duty of counfeling children, ol 
watching over their parents, of exhorting them to fidelity, an 
of uniting their prayers, example and influence, with them 
for the religious inftru€tion, government and welfare of thal 
feed. . ‘The church, who now receive Infant Baptifm, receis 
it as a mark’ of the fame obl ligations to children, and to thei 
“ep Earnie : 


“ 


Are not thefe benefits of the baptifm of chiteivert cnelige 
and invaluable? Is it not a reafonable thing, a blefing rate 
fully to be received, that a mark is appointed to be put upon 


{ 59°) 
idren asa flanding teftimony to them, that they are facredly 
und to fear and ferve Jehovah? Was not this mark, as a 
onftant witnefs to the feed in Ifrael, that they were required 
) flee idolatry, to mortify their corrupt affections, and to ferve 
od wholly and foyever, well calculated to make the moft 
Jutary impreffions upon them? Was it fo-important to 
ave external, viszb/e signs, that circumcifion, many facrifices, 
nd rites were early eftablifhed ;. and was not this ordinance, 
his vifible fign, equally neceflary and important ? Ts it not, 
t this day, of equal fervice, to have the mark of baptifm put 
pon children, as a conftant teftimony that they have been 
iven to, and are claimed by the Triune God, into. whofe 
ame they were baptized?» Can they behold the baptifm of 
n infant, of in any way be reminded of their own baptifm, 
nd not hear their God fay to each of them ;—Ay son, .give 
1€ thy Leart ?—Is not the benefit.of Infant Bapiifm equally 
reat, in relation to parents and to the church? Do parents 
nd the church need emblems to remind them of the crofs, 
f their vows, and of other obligations; and have they not 
mal neéd to fee marked upon the foreheads of their off- 
ring, their obligations to them ? By how much the ordi- 
ace of the Lord’s Supper, arid the baptifm of believers, are 
6 be valued, as visibie signs, by fo much is the baptifm of 
nfants, as a vifible fign, to be valued. If, by a view of the 
sord’s ‘Yable fpread, believers and the church are reminded 
f their obligations, they muft, by the view of an infant bap- 
ized, be reminded of their duty, as parents and a church,.to 
he children upon whom they have fet the mark of God. 
Phus as circumcifion was, fo baptifm now is, the token of God, 
vith believir ng parents and the church, concerning their feed. 


i Se The baptifm of infants is a token of the fpecial engage. 
ments of parents and the church. When they apply the feal 
bf the covenant to their feed, parents enter into folemn en-. 
bagements to | perform the obligations enforced in the covenant. 
They engage, by x holy example, by a firm, Chriftian govern-. 
ment, and. confiant religious inftruCtion, to ufe the whole 
weight of their influence, to train up their children in the fear 
pf God. In this ordinance, they give their full and moft 
hearty approbation to the covenant, in its whole extent, in all 
its‘facted. and indifpenfible requirements. In this ordinance,. 
they renew covenant with God. for themfelves and concerning: 
their feed, make the engagement of faithfulnefs with all the fo-. 
lemnity of a vow,—of a religious oath. In prefence of the fo-. 


-{ 6) 
_ Jemn aflembly, -at the baptifmal font, and with am ¢ “tt 
~ Ornnifcience, they promife fidelity. —In holding | and odd ni 
tering this ordinance, the church enter into an oath, to ule 
their utmoft endeavours to render parents faithful, to countel, 
and guide the feed af the covenant into the fear of the I Lord; ; 
to treat and pray for them as under the covenant, and it 
church fate —Thus, between God and parents, alfo betes 
God and the church, the baptifm of infants is the:token, 1 
only of the obligations of parents and the church to-their feet eC 
but alfo of theattual engagements of both parents and the ch hy 


‘Ts not this defign, my brethren, of Infant Baptifm, real a’ 
sifinitety important ? Has not God required parents to ¢ 
ter, for themfelves, into covenant with him; ta fwear a il 
giance to him, and to receive a feal of their obligations, a token 
of their engagements? Shall he not then appoint -a fpeciall 
mannet of their vowing fidelity to their offspring? Has he 
not forbidden poligamy, and eftablifhed the laws of marriag 

for thisend; thar be mighr have a godly seed on the eartla 4 
Does he not contemplate it as matter of infinite importance, 
that his church fhould live from age to age; that when th ¢ 
fathers are taken away, their children fhould rife up in their 
ftead? And has he not in every age made the richeft movil 
to raile up a feed for himfelf? To effe& this, what methe 
can be mare completely fuited than the ordinance, in whic ch| 
his people moft facredly promife fidelity to children? W 
not the confideration of their vows, have as powerful an influ! 
ence upon parents and the church in this cafe as in any oth : | 
Is it fuitable, that forgetful, degenerate man thould, inh 
worldly tranfaGions, be bound by writings fealed, figned and 
attefled? Andis it, neverthelefs, unfuitable that with folemi ‘4 
oath in the baptifm of infants, parents and the church fhould 
be bound to be the affeGionate, prayerful, and faithful oa s 
of the children lent, and committed to them by: God?) 
not parents, who da this, feel a deep conviétion, that they fee 

epened their mouths to the Lord, and cannot go back? Will 
they not feel, what they otherwife would not feel, -a facred 
fponfibility te the church and ta God, for the condué and lives 
oftheir children? Willthey not feel a devout importunity a 
the throne of mercy for wifdom and grace faithfully to educate 
their feed for the Lord; .and teu that he would imp: ans 
holinefs and falvation tothem? Will not alfo the counfel, tl 
prayers and fidelity engaged -by the chureh refpeting th <} 


"<r? 
feed, be held in high eftimation by humble believing patents 
and produce the moft important effe€ts upon the church? 


_ Mauft not this defign of their baptifm be of unfpeakable mo= 
Ment to children? Certainly none can deny, that the in- 
flru&tion and prayers of parents and the church may be the 
means of everlafting life to their feed. Did not they, who 
carried out their fick friends to Chrift, or defired him to vifit 
them, that he might heal them, prevail and obtain their reco- 
very? Herein, did not the petitions of fome obtain bleffings 
or others? So, did not the parents who brought their chil- 
dren to Chrift, obtain his blefling upon them? Can any man, 
then, doubt that the prayers of parents and the church may 
obtain even eternal bleflings for their feed? Or, can there 
be a doubt concerning the ineflimable benefit, which may re- 
fult to their offspring from a good education under the united 
influence of parents and the church? Daily obfervation does 
indeed teftify to the lafting effe€ts of the good, or bad educa- 
tion of children, and to the almoft certainty, that if a child be 
trained up in the way be should go, when be is old, he- wit Nov 
depart therefrom. But although parents, who have devoted 
their feed to Godin baptifm, are exceedingly unfaithful in the 
fulfilment of their vows; although the church is in various 
refpe€ts unfaithful to parents and their feed, yet the negleéts 
either of parents or the church, can no more be viewed as an 
argument againft the real defign and importance of Jnfant 
Baptifm, than the unfaithfulnefs of believers can be viewed an 
argument againft the defign and importance of their own bap- 
ifm. And although parents and the church may train up their 
children in the way they fhould go, without:entering into fo- 
lemn engagements by their baptifm, yet thefe engagements 
are undeniably calculated to secure more certainly and effec- 
tually, their fidelity and the good education of their feed. 
Faéts alfo prove, that fpecial and fuperior fidelity and fuccefs 
in the education of children are to be found among thofe pa- 
rents and churches, who maintain the baptifm of infants. 
since the defign of their baptifm is, therefore, to fignify the 
engagements of parents and the church, what can be meré. 
aftonifhing than that parents, whofe hearts burn with holy love, 
and are filled with tendernefs and anxiety for their feed, fhould 
difregard the ordinance, of fuch great and everlafting. impor- 
fance ?—All that has hitherto been prefented upon the defign 
of Infant Baptifm, can have not the leaft evil effet upon child, 
parent, er the church. - But the tendency is fo undeniably 


'C @ j 


beneficial; ‘that, if God had hot enjoined the duty, but lef 

practice to the pleafure of parents, we might reafonably e3 
that all parents in the exercife of a right temper, woul 
fowie public way dedicate their feed to God. Feeling the 
fouls of their offspring to be of infinite value, the truft commit. 
téd to themfelves un{peakably momentous, muft not all devout, 
believing parents, who have confidence in their brethren. im 
the Lord, and who devote their feed to God in their clofets, 
embrace with the warmeft gratitude, an opportunity to unit 
the ptayérs and exertions of the church with, their own, and 
‘hus do their utmoft to secure the good education, the holinefg 
-and eternal life of their beloved offspring? yy 


h 
4 
| 


_, 4+ The baptifnd of infants is a feal of the fpecial bleflings oF | 
the covenant for the feed of believers. It defignates the way 
and teftifies the certainty of the tranfmiffien of covenant blefs-” 
ings from age toage. The coveriant did indeed provide for 
the tranfmiffion and extenfion of benefits from generation ta 
. generation, in two different ways. ‘The firft was in the line of 
hereditary descent, and was efpecially refpe€ted in applying thé, 
feal to infants. ‘The other, not particularly refpeéted in thig) 
ordinance, was by the adoption of the Gentiles, who are of the 
wild-olivé tree, into the true olive, or the church and covenant 
of God. That God fecured the admiffion into the Jewith body, | 
of the converted Gentiles ; that they with their children were 
formerly admitted to circumcifion, and all the privileges of the 
church; and that under the gofpel, believers have béen TeECEiV= | 
ed into the fame covenant, and partake of the fatnéss of thé 
olive, are truths which we have already feen confitmed by the 
plain teftimony of fcripture. To Abraham, the promile that 
he fhould become thé father of xAny Nations, fecured the 
adoption of bélieving Gentiles with their feed, and has been 
- 4n.acourfe of fulfilment to this very day. For we, my brethren, 
dre received into the covenant made with Abraham, and ar@ 
his children by adoption only. 7 


Although this was an important way of extending the blefs. 
ings of the covenant, yet the more important and the princips 
way in which God:engaged to tranfmit them was in the lin 
of hereditary descent. To the feed of Abraham, in the line ¢ 


Tfiac and Jacob, and to the feed of believing Gentiles, the pro- 
miles, privileges and feal of the covenant belonged, upon the 
principle of birth-right, _ I will establish, faid God'to the Pa- 


triarch, wiy covenant between mevand Uheey.and THX SRED ARs 


-_ ie 

TER THEE i THEIR GENERATIONS, for an everlasting cove 

ant. ‘This covenant refpeéted and included the feed of Abras 
ham, long before their birth; it looked forward, beyond all 
denial, to unborn generations, and included a feed to the end 
of time. Did not the promife engage the conveyance of the’ 
whole benefits of the covenant to Ifaac, long before his birth ? 
Did it not in the fame manner -fecure the conveyance of the 
fame gooi to the sced of Ifaac ;—then, to the feed of Jacob ;— 
then, to the children of his feed ;—and:thus from generation 
to generation, even to the lateft? Moft indubitably, God. 
tranimitted the promifes, the bleflings and feal of the covenant 
to the feed of his people as theirs by birth, or in the line of na- 
tural defcent, for more than two thoufand years. Is not this 
way of tranfmitting covenant benefits altogether rational? De 
har children receive numberlefs advantages as their dirzh- 
right ? Are not care and maintenance, counfel and inflruc- 
tion from their parents, with protection, and many other privi- 
leges under civil government, their right by birth? If born 
in a Chriftian land, are not the benef&ts of the Chriftian reli- 

Bion, theirs by birth? If the favoured offspring of religious 

arents, do they not hold, as their birth-right, a religious edu- 
cation? ‘Though their own confent is requifite to conftitute 
them a€tive and complete members of the church, are not -the 
principles before us among the firft principles of nature and: 
reafon? As fuch, are they not obferved. by all families, and 
by all civil, if not by all religious focicties?. Shall not the 
Deity then conform to thefe firft principles eftablithed by him- 
felf, and thus extend the bleffings and feal of the covenant to 
the feed of believers as their birth-right ? To thefe principles 
have we not full evidence, that he obferves a ftrict conformity ?: 
Need our text be again repeated ; The promise is unto you, and 
TO YOUR CHILDREN. 


» The covenant, however, which extends to the feed of beliey- 
ers, does not engage, that every individual of this feed fhall be 
Fedeemed. God did indeed engage to Abraham, that all thofe 
of his natural feed, concerning whom he made no exception, 
fhould be the vifible recipients of the covenant, with its blefs-’ 
ings; and that some of thefe vifible recipients fhould become 
the believing recipients of the fpiritual and faving bleflings ; 
or that in the vifible feed, the invifible church fhould live from 
agetoage. Thus God might juftly addrefs the promife to the 
body of Ifrael, and not include every individual. When he 
moplained of the Antideluvians, that all flesh was corrupt, 


( 64 ) a 
Noah and his family were an exception. — Soon after he wad 
the covenant promife to the patriarch, he himfelf declared, that | 
Ifhmael, Abraham’s fix fons by Keturah and Efau, were am) 


is . Aa 


Still, according to his promife, God has ever maintained < 
holy feed, among the lineal defcendants of Abraham ; for in| 
every period fince the death of Chrift and the rejection of the | 
Jewith body, fome have believed, and a remnant has been fav- 
ed. God does therefore preferve fpiritual life in the line of 
Abraham’s feed, and as the Apoftle declares, He bath not cast 
away bis people. Although many of them in every age have. 
not partaken of the faving bleflings ef the rca | yet God 
hath not broken his covenant nor his promife to his people. 
For he engaged nothing more than the prefervation of a true, 
fpiritual feed, among the natural; and that the number of 
this fpiritual feed fhould be great or fmall, according to hig 
fovereign pleafure. ‘Thus we are aflured, that They are not 
att Israel, who are or Israel; they are not all Ifraelites in 
fpirit, in whom is no guile, who are defcended of Ifrael;' 
—That is, they which are the CHILDREN of the FLESH, THESE 
ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF Gop. Bui the children of THE 
PROMISE are counted for the seed. Neverthelefs, when all If-| 
rael thall come in, the promife, though not violated in this age 
will be moft extenfively and gloricufly fulfilled.—Thele re« 
marks concerning the feed among the Ifraelites, are equally’ 
applicable to the feed of believing Gentiles. For both they 
and their feed have ever been adopted into the Hebrew church 
and covenant, and have been rendered of the fame body. oi 
there is, faid Jehovah, but one law for the stranger and bim tha 
is home-born. Therefore as the affurances of féripture evince, 
that the promifes and feal of the covenant were the birth-right 
of Jewifh children, the evidence is equally clear and full, that 
they formerly were, and are at this day, the birth-right of the 
feed of believing Gentiles. The arplication of the feal cans 
‘not, however, be viewed as teflimony from God, that the pers 
fon to whom it is made is a renewed, and fhall be a redeemed, 
perfon ; for were it viewed thus, all perfons who were cca 
cifed, or are baptized, muft, contrary to the flrongefl evidence, 
be confidered as fanétified and faved. ‘The feat of the cove. 
mant does not certify, that the perfons to whomt it is applied 
poffefs faith and holinefs ; but it certifies, that there is alvation 


oS 68% Js 


tured in the covenant, to all who cordially embrace it. ee 
ertifies—not the reality of the fubject’s renewal, but the reality, 
iches, and permanency, of all the bleflings of the covenante 
ind as under the former difpenfation, fo under the prefent,. - 
he feal is the fecufity of the promife, that fome of the feed of . 
élieving parents to whom this feal is applied, and as many of 
hem as infinite grace fhall redeem, fhall be made the children 
f God and obtain eternal Jife; and that although many, who 
vere not devoted to God in their infancy, fhould be called and 
aved, ftill the true church fhall have life, and its fubjets, prin-. 
pally, from thofe defcendants of believers, who are under the 
sovenant with them. ‘Thus the difpenfation and feal of the 
sovenant belong to all the feed of the church, and the faving 
jleffings of it to fo many of this feed as God, in purfuance of 
lis eternal and diftinguifhing mercy, fhall call, jultify and glo- 
ify. 


OF this tranfmiffion of covenant bleffings in the line of here- 
jitary defeent, and that the covenant contains and proffers all 
zood, the baptifm of infants like their ancient circumcifion, is 
2 feal, or confirmation from God. He declared, that the for- 
mer feal fhould be a token, between him, and Abraham and his 
feed, throughout their generations. This feal was the folemn 
confirmation, that God would carry into full and moft gracious 
operation, all the promifes of the covenant. “Thus his cove- 
nant was, and ftill is prefented to the children of his people 
and is*attefted by his feal. . 


_ In this view, can we fully eflimate the importance of apply- 
ing the feal to fuitable infants? From what fource, but igno- 
rance of the defign of Infant Baptifm, can the pretence arife, 
that as infants know not the nature of the ordinance, they are 
incapable of receiving any advantage from it? Are they not 
capable of being the subjects upon whom bleflings may be pro- 
nounced and conferred? If not, why did Chrilt lay his hands 
and pronounce bleflings upon the infants, (for infants they 
were,) who were brought to him? If not, why does every 
Chriftian parent raife his devout afpiration to the Father of 
‘mercies, for his benediction upon his new-born offspring ? 
Cannot a dying parent leave his legacy, bequeathing a fhare of 
his eflate to his infant child? So, cannot God prefent an in- 
heritance in the covenant for the infant feed of his people? To. 
purfue the comparifon, cannot the dying parent leave his legas 
i: I:+- | . 
| 


i 


66 ) 
ty, fealed, figned, and attefted ? Se cannot God prefént, fol 
the children of his fpiritual family, his legacy attefted. with 
his feal? Andas the feal of the parent’s legacy is a feal of thy 
legacy to the child ; fo is not the feal of God’s covenant a fea} 
to the child, ‘of all the bleflings contained and propofed in the 
covenant? Certainly, the feal applied to the legacy by th 
parent, is a feal to the child; and to all others, it is alfo a feal 
of the, child’s tittle ; fo, it is as certain, that baptifm, though 
applied not by an infant but by the order of God, is a feal of 
the covenant to the infant, and to all others it is alfo a feal ¢ 
his tittle to the covenant. Is not baptifm in this view the 
moft folemn teftimony to the child arrived at the age © 
maturity, that God is ready to becoine, in the fulleft extent 
his God? Is it not alfo a mark upon his forehead, that all the 


can there be any that is important? If, that God fhould make 
this provifion, and give this feal of blefings to children, upon 
their entrance into this falleh ‘world, be not an inftance of con: 
‘defcenfion devoutly to be acknowledged, moft certainly there 
can be no condefcenfion. Let parents but feel as they ought 
‘like the patriarchs, and thofe who brought their children to 
Chrif; let the church but feel the evils of this world,- into 
which her children are brought, and they will highly appreciate 
-and moft facredly hold this feal for their feed. ‘This, my bre 
thren, is the ftrongeft teflimonial of the divine good-will to: 
wards your children. This is a feal-of the richeft good fo: 
them. This is abroad bafis for their future hopes, and is thei 
‘{pecial encouragement to repentance. ‘This is your evidence 
that as foon as your feed are objects cf your care and anxiety 
they ate objets of divine favour and fpecial notice. This give 
fupport to your fidelity to your feed, and to your hope, for wil 
dém and grace to train them up for God.  Thisis the groumt 
“of great expeCtation, that if you are devout, faithful parents 
“fome of your children fhall be redeemed. In fine, this i 
ground of confidence, that the church fhall live in her defcend 
- ants: atid that, by the general converfion of the offspring 9 

Vrael, the fhall receive life as from the dead.—Do not, there 
_ fore, the defign and duty of Infant Baptifm mutually illuttrat 
-and confirm each other? Isnot the defign as important as th 
“duty is exprefs and obligatory ? And can we any-where dil 

cover thofe dangerous evils of the ordinance, which have beep 
* $n ¢reat profefion, poured upon it by many? - Can there be th 

lealt real, or even apparent evil to children, parents, or th 


Y oy 7 
hurch > Indeed, if you have jut views of the defign of I Infant 4 


aptifm, you will confider its obfervance a duty of rational, 
rious, and everlafting importance. 


= 


: The next objeé& of our difeourfe is, 


IV. To afcertain the mode of applying the feal, or the mo ds ¥ 
of baptifm. 


Although Chriflian baptifm, in order to its validity, muf 
be adminiftered invariably, in the name of the ‘Trinity ; yet 
the mode of baptifm, is but a mode. We prefume, it is nor 
an effential article of our religion. We believe, that ferip ture 
has not pofitively determined the precife way, or mode of aD. 
plying water in the ordinance. But the Baptifts affert, tha’ 
jotal immersion, dipping or plunging into water, is the mode,a nd 
the only valid mode. We do not deny, that immerfion is bap- 
tifm ; but we deny, that itis the only valid, or {criptural mode, 4 
or that infpiration any where enjoins this, as the only mode. ~ 
We believe, that fcripture advances more in favour of affufion 
or {prinkling, than of any different mode, and that this has a | 
preference fufficiently clear and full. The evidence that 
per is not the only mode, and that affufion is proper and 
alid, we thall derive from the baptifms of the Old-Tefiament; 
—from the baptifm of John ;—from the baptifms adminiftered | 
by the Apoflles ;—from fome mifcellaneous texts, and from. 
the diate of religious decency and order. Under thefear- 
ticles, liberty will be taken to prefent feyeral remarks, which 
wills inan indireé& but imiportant manner, fupport the maintruth. ° 


Here let it be premifed, however, that the fullefl evidence 
has been often, «and, were it needful, might be again prefent- 
ed, that the original words, tranflated baptism and (o baptize, 
exprefs the meré application of water, without implying any 
particular mode of application. Al{o the Greek words trani=. 
dated, going down iio the water, and coming up out of the 
water, are by accurate examination found to Be tranfiated in 
the five firft books of the New-Teflament, not lefs than about 
Mive times out of fix by other words, and moft frequently by 
the words,—+o and Srom,—going to and coming Jrom the wa- 
ter. Befides, going down into the water, no more proves im- 
merfion, than the expreffion, that Chrift went xp into the moun- 
tain proves, that he went ato the very bowels of it. But aswe 
dhall Rill farther attend in the feqnel of the difcourfe to the ex~ 
-prefions before us, we proceed to confider, 


( .68 °) r 4 


_ g.cThe baptifins of the Old-TeNament. Let us:inquil 
whether tofal immerfion was'the only mode inculcatediand™ 


‘ 
> 


‘Yerved under the former difpenfation. 7 nh eg 


At the Red Sea, the children of Ifrael were all baptized unit 
Mofes. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should 
ignorant, bow that all our fathers were under: the cloud ; @ 
all pessed through the sca: and were all baptized unto 0S 
in the cloud and in the sea. Chriftians of all feéts believe t 
to have been a true and proper, although an uncommon am 
miraculous, baptifm by water. All believe alfo, that infan 
as well as adults were then baptized. But were they all i 
merfed ? We are exprefledly aflured, that they were : de! 
the cloud, not iz it. The fcriptare hiliory allo teaches, tha) 
the cloud which had gone before them, went from before thet 
face, pafled over and {tood behind them ;—between their can 
and the camp of the Egyptians. The only way, then, i 
which they could be under the cloud and be baptized by it, wai} 
when it pafled over them ;— from before their face to theirbacks 
Then, they were under the cloud and baptized, or {prinkled Dy 
the falling drops. When they went through thefea, Mofesfays} 
The water as awall, and in a beap, stood on the right hand ani} 
~ on the left, and the people went through vex shod. In this cale 

how were they baptized? No other way, or mode has evé} 
. been mentioned than by the drops and fprays of ‘water, whi ch 
“were caft over upon them. Inthis inftance,we are certain, as thi 
-Baptifts admit, that the Ifraelites, though really baptized, wert 
not plunged,—were only {prinkled. Ofthisfcene,the Apoftley 
“peculiarly defirous, that we fhould have juft views, and a ful 
knowledge. For of thefe things, he faith; Moreover, bre. 
‘thren, I would not that ye faould be ignorant. And certainly 
‘this feene teaches the doétrine of baptifm in general.—l 
teaches the baptifm of infants; for the company who pafled 
through the fea, confifted in part of infants. And it teaches 
‘baptifm by affufion, or fprinkling. Fairly to reconcile this ae 
‘count of baptifm with their fentiments, the Baptifts find ex 
‘tremely difficult, and really impofible. While they declare 
“that total immerfion is the only made, they fay this was a seca ; 

ing immerfion; but upon their principle if it were not real a 

‘otal, it was no baptifm. No man, however, pretends, thal 
‘the Ifraelites were immerfed; or that any but the Egyptians 
were buried in the fea. Here, then, is one inftance of baptifm 
- adminiftered not by man, but by God himfelf and adminiftered 
“by sprinkling. : Ath Site , 


f 


me) 


_ Although we now reftrict the ufe of the word, baptifm, to 

the facred ordinance, yet anciently, it exprefled the. applica- 

tion of water in any way. We are accordingly informed, that 

the tradition of the Pharifees led them to oblerve the wafhing, 

or as it is in the Greek, the dapiism of cups, pots, brazen vel- 

fels, and many fuchlike things. Except they wafhed, or bap- 

tized often, they ate not. A certain Pharifee, with whom 

Chrift was to dine, marveled, that he had not firft wafhed, or 
baptized before dinner.’ Some would make this wafhing, or 
baptifm, an immerfion. But from infpiration we learn, that 
the Jews had certain water-pots, or firkins: for their purifica- 
tions, or baptifms. We know alfo the manner in which they 
improved their water-pots. » When Chrift was in Cana of 
Galilee, where he turned the water into wine, there were fet 
fix of thefe firkins, after the manner of the-purifying. of the 
Jews. When the water in them was made wine, Chrift faid 
unto the fervant ;—Draw out now. Does not this manner of 
fpeech intimate, that the veflels were not defigned for bathing 
the whole body, and that as the Jews would mot wafh themfelves 
‘in any but clean, running water, they had prepared thefe veflels 
by which they could wath themfelves in the water, as it ran 
off? As often, however, as they ate, as often as they came 
from the markets, fo often did they wafh?—a circumftance, 
which plainly fhows, that they muft have confined this wath- 
ing to fome part of the body. © The matter however is decided 
‘by one of the Hvangelifts, who fays; he Pharisees, and all the 
Fews, except they wash, or baptize their hands oft, cat note 
This wathing or baptifm, then, was confined to the hands. Here 
we have another inflance of baptifm, which was not performed 
by inimerfion, but by wafhing a fmall part of the body. 


purifications. Some of them were: bathings ; but the greater 
part fprinklings. ‘Chefe sprinklings, Paul has called baptifms. 
Speaking of the ceremonial law, in the 9th chapter to the He- 
_brews, he fays, Ic stood only in meats, and drinks, and. divers 
} washings, or, in the Greek, divers BAPTISMS. By thefe divers 
-wafhings, or daprisms, the Apoftle intends divers sprinklings. 
| Take his own explanation, {he blood of bulls, and of goats, and 
the afees of an beifer, spRinKiine the. unclean, sanéiifieth to 
othe purifying of ibe flesh.  FMoses took the bluod of calves, and of 
goats, with waier,—and SPRINKLED both we bovk, .and all the 
peoples Moreover, be sPRINKLED likewise wid blood, boih the 


i 
t 
: 
! By divine appointment, the Jews obferved divers kinds of 
| 


Ce 9 
tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. “And almost a 
ibings are, by the law, purged with blood; and as blood was 
ufed by fprinkling, they were purged with the sprinkling of 
blood. ‘Thus, as the Apoftle mentions divers baptisms, {pez 
of them all as fo many fprinklings, and refers not fo much ag 
to one kind of’purification performed in a*mode different from 
fprinkling,’ it is undeniable, as-an excellent writer has faid, 
that, if the infpired penman underftood his own words, he knew 
and believed, and intended we fhould know and believe, that 
sprinkling is baptism.—Under the law, the impure mixture of 
-the blood of bulls; and of goats, and the afhes of an heifer, 
sprinkling the unclean, fanétified to the purifying of the fleih 
\ Doubtlefs, in reference to the Gofpel baptifm, free from thé 
impurity of blood, and the afhes of an heifer, the prophet Eze- 
kiel faid, Then will J spRINKLE CLEAN WATER upon you, and 
ze shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your 
idols, will I cleanse you. —Here fprinkling is again reprefented 
_as.a valid mode of baptifm. ‘ a 


We notice another inftance, under the Old-Teftament.= 
Whenever Aaron and his fons went to execute their office 98 
'Priefts in the tabernacle and at the altar, God commanded 
‘them to wafh their hands and their feet at the laver of watery 
“which ftood between the tabernacle and altar. Aad Aaron and 
bis sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat. This 

cleanfing required the wafhing of the hands and feet only, and 
was repeated as often.as they miniftered in the tabernacle.— 
“But when the Levites were firft fet apart and ordained, at “4 
age of twenty-five and upwards, to the conftant fervice of the 
~fan&tuary, and to be the Lerd’s completely, Mofes was: coms, 
manded to aflemble the whole congregation, and to bring) 
the Levites to the door of the tabernacle, before all the 
people, and to wafh them, ina public, folemn manner, with 
water. ‘This was the act of fetting them apart at firft, or of 
their public ordination to the duties of the fanétuary. This 
wathing, which was never to be repeated, was not reftricted 
to their hands and their feet. But do you inquire, how they 
were to be walhed? It is a circumftance of importance, that. 
ve are exprelsly informed. Said God to Mofes; Yhus sha 
thou do unto them, to cleanse them ;—seRInKLE water of pile 
nifyine upon them.* Nothing perhaps in the Old-Teflament 
concerning the mode of -baptifm, is of fo great importance 4. 
this. After this {prinkling,andfome other ceremonies concer 
* Exodus xxx. 19—Numb. viii. 7 " 


a 2 


ag them,God faith ; Thus the Levites shall be mine, and shall-ge 
1 to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.— For they 
re wholly given unio me, from among she children of Israel. 
ideed, this fprinkling, with fome other rites, was the very or- 
inance of initiating, ordaining, and eftablifhing them, in their 
fice. Doubtlefs, in conformity to this precept, our Saviour 
‘as baptized. And the evidence is firong and clear, that he 
as baptized by fprinkling. Chrift could not be baptized be- 
afe he needed repentance, nor becaufe he had any fins to 
ie wafhed away; nor that he might in this become an exam- 
le to believers. He was, in himfelf, holy and harmlefs. He 
‘ould not receive baptifm frem John, that he might be an ex- 
mple to others, to fubmit to the baptifm and miniftry of his 
Wre-rumner. Thisis certain; becaufe he did not go to John, 
til all the people had been baptized by him. Wow whes 
Ul the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also be- 
ge baptized, and praying, the Heaven was opened. Had Chrift 
eligned his baptifm to be an example to the men of his age, 
= would have prefented himfelf to John, before others.. And 
at it is not defined for an example to us is certain from the 
onfideration, that we cannot be baptized in a character like 
Yhrift’s, nor for the reafons, for which he was baptized.’ To 
ohn, he gave this reafon, for his baptifm; Suffer it to be so 
ow ; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.—None 
an doubt but the rightconfnefs to which he had reference was 
hat of the rites ofthe Mofaic difpenfation. ‘Yo fulfil the righte- 
ufnefs of this law, he was circumcifed. To fulfil this, was a 
onftant ‘objec of his life. It was proper he fhould be ordained 
Levite ; a-prieft, in the way God had appointed. For no rea 
on but to introduce him into office in the regular way, could he 
teed baptifm. For this reafon, and for this only, he was bap- 
ized; and if he complied with the exprefs command of God 
1 this cafe, he was sprinkled. While this fhows, that the bap- 
ifm of Chrift, which was his public ordination to his public 
niniftry, is entirely different from his cireumcifion, whieh was 
0 exprefs his memberfhip in the Jewifh church and covenant ; 
it clearly fhows alfo, that none, unlefs introduced into the an- 
cient office of the priefts and Levites, can pretend, in receiving 
baptifm, to imitate the example of Chrift. - Thus far we have 
full evidence, that there were under the Old-Teflament many 
inftances, in which, by divine direGiion, baptifm was perform- 
ed by {prinkling. ‘sage > alle 


4 


 - 


C ey gia: 
~ a The-baptifm of John, the fore-runner of Chrifl, is next 
to be examined. ‘his is diftinguifhed from the baptifms” 
the Old-Teftament, and made a particular head of difcourf 
not becaufe it was not under the old difpenfation, but beca fe 
it is in fome refpetts a baptifm peculiar to itfelf, and ought to 
be well underftood.—-The baptifm of John was under the legal 
difpenfation; and was not Chriftian baptifm. Ifit were Chrift 
tian baptifm, then almoft all the Jewith nation were Chriftians§ 
for there went out unto him, and were baptized of him, Jerus 
falem, all Judea, and all the region round about. John did) 
not baptize in the name of the ‘I rinity ; many, whom he bape 
tized, were according to the xixth. chapter of A€ts, again baps 
tized, after the Chriftian difpenfation was eftablifhed. The 
meflage which John delivered was, that The kingdom of Hea- 
ven, or yofpel difpenfation, is aT HaNnD, not thatit is already 
come; and he was fent to do, only in a more eminent degrees 
what the former prophets had done ;—zo prepare the way of 
the Lord: ‘Yhefe evidences are fufficient to prove, that his 
miniftry was uhder the Mofaic Jaw, and that his baptifm was 


widely different from that appointed by Chrift. a 


_ John, however, is called she Bapiist, not becaufe he plungec 
his followers, but becaufe he was fent for the exprefs purpolé 
of baptizing, and becaufe of the vaft multitude whom he bap. 
tized. ‘This prophet lived inthe deferts, and was, fo to {peak,. 
a defert, a wildernefs, a field preacher. He was foliowed by 
people without number ;—Alt Ferusalem, all Fudea, and al 
the region round about. Hence to accommodate the vait mul- 
titudes who followed him, and their bealts with water and res 
frefhment, he moved his ftation to Enon, near Jordan, for there 
avas much water there. He was alfo fent to baptize with watery 
not in it. In this fenfe,andin Jordan, the moft convenient 
place, he baptized with, not in water. His miniftry was fhort, 
yet he baptized vaft companies. But had he baptized by im- 
merfion, he could have found but little time for difcourfing te 
the people, and muit have continued in the water the greatelt 
part of his miniftry and to his highett peril, ifnot death. John, 
however, baptized, moft evidently at any the moft convenient 
place, whether at the rivulets of Enon, or at the brink of Jor- 
dan. . 


g. We are now to examine the baptifms adminiftered by 
the Apofiles. They, according to fcripture, baptized im the 
days of Chrift, more difciples than John ; yst we do not reac 


| € 73) 

f their going to a pond, a river, or even 2 brook. The fa& 
yas, they preached in the fynagogues, or from houfe to houfe, 
ind undoubtedly baptized in them. Here you will notice at- 
entively, and remember with care, that, in not fo much as one 
: are we informed, that they, in order to baptize, left 
e place of their worfhip, and moved to a river; or that thoie 
aptized, changed their apparel, or that one thing was done 
vhich plainly implies immerfion. Unlefs their fituation for- 
jade even {prinkling or the convenience of a bafon of water, 
hey are reprefented as having invariably performed baptifm 
n the very places in which they preached. 


| On the day of Pentecoft, when, according to infpiration, 
eter did not begin his fermon until the third hour of the day, 
Yr nine o’clock in the morning; when he testified and exhorted, 
aith the infpired penman, with many other words than thofe 
ecorded; when the other Apofttes alfo, preached to the peo- 
le; and when beyond doubt a large part of the day was paft ¢ 

en then, the three thoufand, who were convicted, profefled 
heir faith, and, on the fame day, were baptized and added to 
he church. Can any man believe they were baptized by im- 
erfion? The multitude was aflembled from fifteen different 
lations, and confifled of Jews, profelytes and firangers ; the 
vent was totally unexpeted; no preparations for plunging 
ad been made; there was no river in Jerufalem; they could 
t improve the laver, brazen fea, and other veflels of water 
n the temple, for thefe were in the pofiefion of their bitterefE 
emies, the Jewihh priefts and rulers.—In every view, it clear=- 
y appears that they had no convenience for dipping; they 
ad but little time, at mofl, only afew hours; and yet, without 
any attempt to fee what difpatch they could make in baptizing, 
t with deliberate regularity, they did upon the felf-fame day 
aptize three thoufand fouls. Thefe circumftances viewed 
‘th candour muft be confidered as evidence quite fatisfaCtorys 
hat the multitude were baptized by affufion, and efpecially, 
ince not one thing is mentioned which even intimates that the 


mode was different. 


The accounts siven of the baptifm of Lydia, of the Funuch, 
of the Jailor, of Cornelius with others, and of Paul, fupport 
the mode of affufion. The acccunt of Paul’s baptifm teaches, 
‘that after he had been blind, and had fafied three days; after 
he had been exceedingly = and weakened in body ang 


{ 7 3 


.. tpind,. and when wholly unfit to be immerfed, he arofe int 
. honle” where he was, and was baptized by Annanias. Whi 
the expreffion, that he arose, fhows his refpe& for Ghrill 7 
gives.not a diflant hint, that they both went forth to a ftrear 
and folemnized the ordinance by plunging. Had this been th 
cale, had the facred hiflorian, or even the Spirit by whom h 
was guided in writing, viewed plunging the only mode of baj 
tifm, “he would not, he could not, after he had been fo particy 
lar as to record, that Annanias went his way, and entered int 
_ the houfe, and that Paul arofe from his couch, or feat for bap 
, tifm,-he-could not have left his account fo imperfeét, fo decez 
tory, as in the moft natural manner, to fix upon every reade 
the impreffion that, in the houfe, in the very room where Pau 
“was found by Annanias, there he arofeand was baptized. Suc 
. however i is the firft and natural impreffion from the account, 
a full teRimony that, if the hiftorian, or the Spirit of infpiratic 
* were honef, plunging was not neceflary for baptifm, that Pau 
was not plunged but {prinkled.— The writer of the A&s, afte 
- informing that Peter entered into the houfe of Cornelius whe 
* ‘had colleed many of his friends to hear the Apoftle, and havs 
F ing given a fummpary of his difcourfe to them, aflures us, tha 
Peter, feeing the company of Gentile hearers baptized by the 
Holy Ghoft, which fell on them, inquired ; Can any man forbia 
waster, that these should not be baptized, who have received ihe 
Holy Ghost as well as we? Although the Jews had been ready 
to forbid the Gentiles the privileges of the church, yet when 
the Apoftle faw the Spirit given them, even as to the Jews at 
Pentecoft, he prefumed no man could forbid the baptifm of wa 
ter. This account is far indeed from giving room for a fur. 

' mife, that Peter and his hearers left the houfe of worfhip, an 
went to abody of water for immerfion. But in the very lan. 
guage which we fhould expeft he would adopt, if he had de. 
fired a {mall veflel of water to be brought into the room for bap. 
. tifm by affufion, in precifely fuch language, he interrogates 
- Can auy man forbid waver, forbid it to be brought, and not 
- forbid us from going to a pond of water? Does not this ac 
* count plainly and fully imply, that Peter baptized his believing 
hearers in the very apartment in which the Holy Ghoft fel 

. upon. them ;~-in the very one in which he preached Chrift te 

* them? Let candour, let the fpirit of fimplitity read the ac 
count, and we are ready to abide the decifion. —Concerning 
‘thé baptifm of the Jailor and his houfehold, fuffice it to obferve 

, ‘that on hearing the Karthquake, and. feeing the prifon-door: 
~ “opened, he {prang in and brought Paul and Silas out of thei 


a 


; mo) 


ungeon and chains, into another apartment, where he and 
Hl his were ftraizhtway baptized; and doubtlefs in a mode ~ 
itable to 2 room in the Jail. At the dead of night, when the 
ity was all in confternation, by the heavy Earthquake, when 
che two Apoftles were prifong-s, and would rot the next dey 
eave the prifon, uniefs the magiftrates would come and bring 
them out, how uulikely, that they yet went forth in the night, 
ind immerfed the Jailor and his family? Moft obvioufly did 
they baptize them in an apartment of the Jail, after which the 
iailor teok them into his own houfe, near and perbaps adjoin- — 
ing the prifon, and fet meat before them.— When Philip and 
e Funuch were travelling in Gaza, which was expreisly call- 
Desert, which was an uninhabited, defert place, the moit 
ponvenient way, the only way for them to celebrate baptiim 
yas, as they came to water, to defcend from the chariot to the 
argin of the water, and there obferve the ordinance. Thisis_ 
the only iuftance, in which we have evidence, that Chriflian 
paptifm was performed, not in a houfe but at a bedy of waters ~ 
But had the mode of Baptifm-been fprink!ing> Philip and the 
unuch muft ftill have gone down to this water, as it afforded 
he only opportunity for celebrating the ordinance. Gr fhould © 
m objeCtor, to prove immerfion, adduce the wortis, Tey 2oTH 
went down into the water, the reply is jufi; that ifthis prove 
the immerfion of the Eunuch, it proves the immerfon of 
Philip alfo; for they both went down alike into the water. 
This whole account, however, accords perfeGily with the opi- 
on, that the Eunuch ftanding m, or near the borders of the 
ater, was baptized by fprinkling.—W hen Lydia and her houfe 
vere baptized, Paul and Timothy, Wert out of the city on the 
Sabbath-day, by a river's side, where prayer was wont to be made = 
or as it is in the original Greek, They went out of the city, 10 a 
PROSEUCHE, on the river’s side. This proseuche, was a Hause 
of Prayer ; a retired houfe, for fecret or focial worthip. ‘The 
deus. had many houfes of this kind. To this, ffanding upon 
he fide of a river, where many women had reforted, Paul and 
Timothy went, and preached. Here, Lydia’s heart beng 
@pened to receive the word, fhe and her houfehold were bap- 
frzed. Not the leaf intimation is given, that they went down 
to the water, or fo much as went out of the houfe of prayer. 
Certainly, they did not aflemble at this houfe, in order to be. “ 
near a river for baptizing. © But they aflembled, in their ufuak 
Way, without any expeétation of baptifm. Here Paul and his: _ 
¢eompanion found them, preached to them, ad baptized.—From ~ 
Be account ef this, and of the other inftances, in which the 


4 


’ ( 76 ) 


Apofiles baptized, who would conclude, they baptized, by 
pinging ? Not in fo muchas one cafe, is there a fair proba= 

ility, that they immerfed. Not in fo much as one cafe, is 
there mentioned any circumftance of baptizing, different from 
what we fhould expect, if fprinkling had been the invariable 
mode. On the whole, the confequence is certain, that the 
pragtice of the Apoftles does not afford decisive evidence, that 
they viewed plunging the only proper mode of baptifm; nor, 
that they did in all cafes, or even in one cafe, baptize by plung. 
ing. But to believe, without ful/, decisive evidence, that the 
Apoftles fo viewed baptifm. and fo praétifed, is to be wile as 
pove what is written, and to impofe upon man a human ine 
vention, as a doctrine of heaven.* 


4. Some mifcellaneous texts, referring or fuppofed by fome) 
to refer to the mode of baptifm, deferve examination. Ong 
faith, one Lord, one Bartism, This undoubtedly is the bap. 
tifm of the heart; and does neither eftablifh, nor difprove bap. 
tifm by water. Or if it mean there is but one mode of bapy 
tifm, it does not intimate, that the only mode is immerfion, 
rather than affufion.—Believers are faid to be buried with 
Chrift in baptifm. Many erroneoufly apply this to water bap. 
tilm. One of the paflages, which is in the fixth chapter o 
Romans, runs thus: Therefore we are ByRIED Wilh him, 6 
baptism, into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from th 
dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should wal 
in newness of life; for if we have been PLANTED together, 
in the likeness of bis death, we shall be also in the likeness of 
bis resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is CRUCIFIED) 
with bim, that the body of sin might be DESTROYED ; that 
benceforth we should not serve sin. ‘This burial with Chrift in| 
baptifm, mutt be either’a Zizeral, or a figurative expreflion. If 
jt be /iseral, and intend an aGtual burying with Chrift, then 
the other expreffions are literal and mean that believers are li-_ 
terally planted—a€tually crucified, and their bodiesliterally killed _ 
er destroyed. But as none can pretend that the bodies of be- 
lievers are ta be put to death on a crofs, fo none can believe 
that this burial is literal. It is unqueftionably figurative. For | 
one certain confequence of this burial is newness of life, which — 
does not always follow mere plunging in water. The paflage | 
deferibes the effe€ts of the baptifm of the Spirit, which are {pi- 
ritual crucifixion, and deftruGtion ta the reigning power of fin, 


‘3 Aas ii, ix, 1%—19, x. 47, xvi. 8—16, , The reader is requefied £0 examing 
@erefuliy, the Scripture accounre, of the above named baptifgrs. ; 


=’ 


€ 77 3 


6 the old man, and alfo a planting and raifing from the death 
if fin, to newnefs, or holinefs of life. Believers are alfo bap- 
ized into the death, the life, and the whole character of Chrift. 
Gence they are juftly reprefented as in a fpiritual fenfe dead, 
wuried, and yet fiving with Chrift. ‘The icriptures, however, 
peak frequently of the literal burial of the dead, but never of 
he fiving. Chrift dire&ted his Apottles to baptize his difciples 
fith water, not to bury them in water. And not one whom 
hey baptized is reprefented as buried, or even dipped. Re- 
erring to the text before us, a preacher, who lately left the 
Saptift order, obferves: “I cannot difcover the leatt likenefs, 
‘between the death of Chrift as reprefented by the four Evan- 
€gelifts, and baptifm by immerfion. IfChrift had died by be- 
‘ing drowned, there would have been a likenefs.” Moff cer- 
ainly, the crucifixion and burial of Chrift have no refem- 
jlance to immerfion, and every one. by a careful examination 
of the paflages which fpeak of burial in baptism, mutt be con- 
inced, that they have reference not to water baptifm, but to 
he baptifm of the Spirit. 


~The defign of baptifm is not, like the facrament of the Sup- 
Ser, to reprefent the death of Chrift; but either, as before 
proved, the application of Chrift’s blood for cleanfing and juf- 
ification, or elfe a renewal of the heart by the influences of 


as RAIN upon the mown grass, and like snowERs which waier 
the earth. The Lord by the mouth of Joel foretold, concerning 
zofpel times, what he declared by Peter was fulfilled on the 
Jay of Pentecoft; Iwill rour ou: my spirit on all flesh—And 
Christe, added the Apoftle, bath sep ForTH this, which ye 
mow see and hear. Thus, with the mofl obvious propriety, does 
the fcripture conftantly reprefent the influences of the Spirit 
as shed forth and poured out as rain; and never as dipping, or 
immerfing believers. 


| Sprinkling is the mode which expreffes the application of 
Chriii’s blood, with far greater propriety than dipping. Sprink- 
ling of blood, upon the door-pofts of the children of Ifrael in 
‘gypt, was fufiicient to fecure them from the deftroyer.— 
Spainxiinc of blood formerly exprefled the cleansing of 
the fichh;—a full intimation that the fprinkling of Chrif’s 


3 Bll aka 
‘blood upon us, cleanseth from all sin. Wenever read of the! 
application of Chrifl’s blood by dipping, or immerfion, but con- 
ftantly by sprinking. Ye, fays the apoftle, are ceme to the blood 
of SPRINKLING, and sprinKLInG Of the blood of Christ. By 
the prophet, God made this promife to his people under th 
gofpel, J will sprinKLe clean water upon you, and ye shall 
clean; and so shall Chrift sprinKLE many nations.* Do not 
fuch uniform reprefentations amount to fatisfaftory proof, that 
fprinkling is baptifm? As this is the invariable language @ ’ 
{cripture, it is certain, if dipping in the blood of Chrift, in th | 
Spirit and in water, be the only mode of baptifm, that the fa 
cred penmen are chargeable with ignorance or a defign to 
deceive. Nor will the charge reft upon them alone; it mult 
_ be equally againfl their Lord, and the Spirit of infpiration. ~ 


cd 


The /ast evidence concerning the mode of baptifm is the 
dictate of religious order, and decency. God requireth, that 
all things be done decently, and in order. The fimplicity, 
order, and folemnity of the gofpel, are peculiarly great and) 
obvious. The whole fpirit of it is far from enjoining any 
burdenfome. and efpecially any dangerous external ordinances 
The houfe of God is the place where he has recorded his name, 
and where, as he has faid, he will meet his people, and 
them. In his houfe, he has dire€ted them to wait upon him, 
in the folemnities and facred rites of his worfhip. Can any 
other place then be fo fuitable, for the adminiftration of bap 
tifm, the ordinance of God, as the houfe of God? To leave 
the fanétuary, and worfhip of God and move to a flream or 
pond, in order to celebrate the ordinance, cannot be done but 
with great inconvenience, parade,andperhaps diforder. Incon- 
venience, danger, and obvious indecency, are infeparably cot 
ne€ted with baptifim by immerfion. While fuch are the con. 
comitants of dipping, {prinkling in the houfe or place of wo 
fhip is altogether decent, regular, rational and compatib 
with apoftolic example, and the whole current of the feriptur 
allusions to baptifm. Wherefore, my brethren, to determi 
for yourfelves, whether thefe things are fo, search the scrip. 
tures :—fearch them, free fromthe prejudices either of party, 
-or of education; and be humbly guided by that Spirit, ri 


infpired them. Jn this way, determine whether immerf 
be the on/y mode of baptifm; and whether the peculiar f 
timents of the Baptifls, be not founded in great miftakes, am 
hurtful errors. oh 

* Heb. xit 14¢ 1 Pet.i. 2. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Ifai. lii. 13, 


ae 


‘SERMON IV. 


-[AVING attended, my brethren, at unexpeéed length, 
-* to the evidence, that the covenant with Abraham is the. 
ovenant of grace, to the right and tothe defign of the baptifm 
f infants, and to the mode of baptifm, we mutt briefly confi- 
er but few of the many important articles, which naturally 
refent themfelves for our ferious and particular = 


IMPROVEMENT. 


1. Our fubject leads us to grateful and admiring views of 
ie riches of divine wifdom and mercy difplayed in the cove- 
ant of grace. Beholding the ftrict, but righteous and ever- 
afting indignation which purfued the fpirits of light upon 
heir apoftacy, both reafon and angels, witnefling the revolt of 
nan, muft have expecled wrath without mercy to fall in a 
leluge upon him. ‘They muft have viewed his ftate beyond: 
emedy. And Adam himfelf, when he heard the voice of the 
_ord God walking in the garden, muft have concluded it the 
mice of an avenging, an inexorable Judge. Hence, confcious 
puilt and dread to face his Maker, urged his attempt to hide 
imfelf among the trees of the garden. Dark and folemn was 
he day on which the firft man fell. All creatures looked and 
velieved himi loft, loft forever! But the Lord defcended 
ind entered the garden, not only to reprove, condemn and 
yunith, but alfo to difclofe his. purpofes of love ;—of that love 
00, which was large and boundleds as redemption, which ex- 
fied in the divine bofom before creatures had being, even 
rom everlafting, which was of courle unmerited, unfolicited, 
jrecious even as blood in heaven, extenfively efficacious, and 
liflinguifhing men from angels. In the firft promife, God 
ypened, though but partially, the covenant of his grace. From 
age to age, from Adam to Abraham, from him to Chrift, from’ 
Chrift to this day, and from this day to the clofe of time, this 
povenant has been and will be in a flate of conflant difclofure 
and glorious extenfion. aft, infinite indeed, are the riches 
pf divine wifdom and mercy, which it difplays. ‘Phat He, 
whofe {ceptre {wayeth all worlds, fhould bend from his throne, 

)prefent this covenant to fallen mortals, demands our higheft 

fatitude, inceflant admiration and praile. 


ik 


The unity or onenefs of the defign, or the famenefs of the co 
yenant, preferved in various difpenfations, equally points to di 
vine wifdom. This covenant, although it has pafled through | 
various editions, or has been prefentéed under different difpens| 
fations, has remained invariably the fame. When eftablifhed) 
in the patriarchal age with faithful families, it was the coves 
nant of grace exhibited in that form. When eftablifhed with) 
Abraham and the Ifraelites as a nation and accompanied with) 
ceremonies, it was {till the covenant of grace. When the Sinai 
covenant, which contained the rules of perfe&t obedience, and) 
called on this account the law, or covenant of works, and) 
which, as it provided pardon for the guilty, may be termed the | 
gospel in the form of law, when this Sinai covenant was 
given, it was given as an appendage to the ftanding, the ever: 
lafting covenant of grace. When the Sinai difpenfation was 
fucceeded by the gofpel, there remained the fame, though 1 
anew form, the covenant of grace. That God has thus caui-| 
ed his different difpenfations to be but the means or forms o 
opening his gracious covenant, and that from one difpenfatior 
to another, he has unfolded to greater extent, and with increal. 
ed glory, the wifdom and grace of the fame covenant, fully 
evince his immutability, his fidelity and mercy to his people. 


In his choice of Abraham, and in his promife to be a God 
unto him, Jehovah has difplayed wifdom and grace. As ne 
merit can be attached to the fidelity of believing parents, he 
manifefted equal wifdom and.grace in his promife to the pa 
triarch and to believers, to be a God not only to them but to” 
their seed after them. Inhis fovercign and gracious pleafure, 
God has given this promife and eftablifhed the connection be- 
tween the faithful and their offspring. As he ufes other means 
of grace, fo he has appointed the fidelity of parents as a pecus 
liar means of conveying bleflings from age to age. How gra 
cious, how rich and large the provifion, for the tranfmiffion of 
bleflings to the feed of his people? This provifion muft impreis 
every one as rational, wife and gracious. Are not parents 
above all others the fuitable perfons to pray for and with their 
children, to counfel and inftruét, reftrain, and educate them 
for glory? If it be rational, that Gad fhould promife fuccet 
to the faithful embafladors of the gofpel, moft certainly, it i 
rational, that he fhould promife fuccefs to parental inftru€tion, 

rayers and fidelity. “othe feed of whom but of his own 
people, fhall God give promile of fpecial good? Shall heem 
gage to his church the conveyance of bieflings upon itrangers 


r 


( si iy 


‘and foreigners, and not rather, in the firft place, to their own 
féed? Unqueftionably, while the promife is to all thofe afar- 
‘off, who become penitent, it muft be directed in a fpecial man- 
ner, to the defcendants of his open and faithful friends. Itis 
my brethren; proper, itis rational, it is wife, it is gracious, 
that God fhould do what he has in faét done,—that he fhould. 
in his covenant make fpecial provifion for the feed of his peo- 
ple ;—a feed whom he claims as Ais, the firft moment of 
their exiftence. Here, you can difcover propriety, wildom, 
and abundant grace. Here, you behold ample fecurity given 
to the church ages ago, that fhe fhould live in this hoftile world, 
and fhould live in her defcendants as well as in the acceflion. 
of Gentiles, to the laft period of time. 


To the church, wifely made the receptacle of the great fpi- 
ritual bleffings to be conférred upon the world, God has carried 
into effect the provifion of his covenant. From Abraham 
down the lapfe of ages to the prefent time, he has beftowed 
bleflings, generally, according to the great covenant promife ; 
generally and chiefly upon the feed of his chofen people, In 
every age, the main body of thofe to whom he has given faith: 
and repentance unto life, have been among this feed, or among 
thofe, who were devoted to him agreeably to the prefcription 

of the covenant. ‘Not only in the covenant provifion, but alfo 
in the fulfilment of the covenant promifes to the feed of the: 
faithful, you muft obferve the infinite wifdom and grace of 
God. And in view of thefe things, you niuft unite with Paul 
in exclaiming under the fame view; O the depths of the riches, 
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unscarchable 
are bis judgments, and bis ways past finding out 


_ 2. The obligations of parents to comply, in the exercife of 
faith, with all the propofals of God’s gracious covenant, are: 
unfpeakably great and important. Molt unexpetted and afto- 
nifhing is the condefcenfion of God, in prefenting to loft maz 
the covenant of his infinite grace. ‘Lo every one, to every 
parent efpeciaily, he faith, Walk before me, and be thou perfect ¢ 
and I will be a God unto thee, and 10 thy seed after thee. Such 
propofals of grace once made, the duty of every one is as ob- 
vious as itis important. All are bound to meet God, in his 
offers of infinite good. As important, my hearers, as are the 
pardon of your fins, the favour of God, and your eternal 
life ; as important as it is that you fhould fecure bleflings for 
. : : 


( 8) 


yourfelves and for your feed, even fo important it is, that y 
embrace Gad’s covenant in the exercife of faith and of tru 
obedience. Should you, deftitute of tenewed, obedient ar 
fpiritual hearts, pretend to meet the divine propofals, eithi 
for -yourfelves or for your feed, you would but infult Jehovz 
with folemn mockery; you would but induce and faften h 
judgments upon yourlelves, if not upon your feed. To tak 
with unclean hands; and unhallowed hearts, the moft facre 
things of our holy religion, is impiety and facrilege, the moi 
daring and fatal. What bast thou to do, faith God tothe um 

renewed and unfaithful, What bast thou to do,—ibat thom 
shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth. Bring ino more va 
eblation ! Incense, like this, is abominazion ! “They who bring) 
it, are the finners in Zion, who thall be afraid, the hypocritesy) 
who fhall be furprifed, and whofe hope fhall perifh, when’God) 
taketh away the foul. 


Although fuch evils await thofe, who profane the ordinances) 
of God, yet bleflings of great value are fecured to thofe, wht 
cordially and believingly obferve them. kmbrace this coves 
nant in fpirit and truth, and God will be a God unto yon, and) 
to your feed. To fecure the benefits of this covenant for your 
felves, you muft, in the exercife of faith, embrace it for yours 
felves; and to fecure its benefits for your feed, you muft, im) 
the exercife of faith, embrace it as really comprifing them. 
In order to the proper reception of the covenant, faith in tha 
part of it which relatesto your children, is as neediul as faith 
in that part of it which relates dire@ly to yourfelves. Certain# 
ly, unlefs you embrace the covenant for your children, unle 3 
you embrace it in all its parts, in its whole extent, you mifs 
take the true covenant, and expofe yourlelves to lofe all the 
mercy which God gracioufly offers for yourfelves and for your, 
feed. Not fevering then the parts of the covenant, let it be 
your care to embrace and obfeeve the whole of it in a humble 
believing temper of foul. 


4. Our fubject hows, that highly folemn and idle is the 
duty ofthe church towards her baptized feed. By ihe exprels 
purpofe of God, this feed is included in the covenant, and placed 
at their birth, under the fpecia! care of the church. “This their 
flanding has been confirmed, from Abraham to this day, by 
the feal of the cgvenant applied to them. Hence arile the 
facred obligations of their parents, and the church, to tre 
them as the feed of the Lord, By their relations to their Seed 


as ee, 


py the injun&tons of their God, and by the folemn meeting 
Before them and their feed, at the tribunal of their final Judge, 
believing parents are urged to unite wife, prudent, uniform 
and holy examples, inftruction, government, and prayers for 
the welfare of their children. ‘Thechurch alfo, to fecure the 
Madelity of parents, are bound to watch over, encourage and ad. 
Moniih them ; and as far as poflible to co-operate with them, 
lm all the means which they ufe. Would parents and the 
shurch but exhibit before their offspring an example, in all 
efpects, Chriftian ; would they but unitedly guard them againtt 
he company, the errors, and the vanities of the world, and 
imprefs them with reverence for the worfhip and ordinances 
ef God’s heufe; would they but provide and maintain for 
them fchools, uniting the advantages of inftry€tion, both in li- 
terature and religion; and would they but faithfully and affec- 
tionately addrefs them, in private and in public, by their paf- 
tor, and a fuitable committee; would they but watch over, 
‘admonith and advife them, with becoming fidelity, and exer~ 
icife over them, in the few cafes which require it, the difeiplina- 
ity power which Chrift has delegated them; would they but 
“pray with and for them, and really view and treat them as 
within the pale of the church, and according te divine com- 
imand, great, diflufive, and lafting benefits would, in all pro- 
ibability, be the refult. Were thefe duties faithfully difcharga 
led, fewer would be the infitances in which baptized children 
‘would become infidel and abandonedly wicked ;—in which 
parents would be grieved at the heart for the impiety of their 
‘offspring, and in which the church would be compelled to. 
‘mourn the difappointment of her hopes in her feed... The 
'gonmection between means and their ends, is in no inflance 
greater than between the fidelity of parents, or the church and 
‘their fuccefs. If grace be given to render parents and the 
ehurch prayerful and faithful, we may. reafonably expect, that 
' grace will be farther given, to anfwer their requefts, and to 
fucceed their fidelity. Were the obligations upon individuals 
}and the church fuitably difcharged, the falutary and important 
effects of Infant Baptifm would be ieen, would be felt, would 
| lence the oppofition and reproach of all believers, againft this. 
ordinance, and would by undeniable faéts, prove its great and 
| everlafting utility. Such important confequences, my brea 
thren, fufpended upon the upright performance of your duty 
| to your feed, muft deeply imprefs upon you the importance of 
| aniverfal fidelity. On the other hand, that general neglect of 
the feed of Zion, which has long and generally prevailed 


Cee)" 
throughout our churches, is a breach of covenant obligatia ns, 
has accumulated upon us an immenfe load of guilt, expofes the 
fouls of baptized children, has afforded oceafion for the deni | 
of the baptifm of infants, and has brought upon the pedobaptilt 
church the fcourge of a fe€i, who deny and oppofe all the pris 
vileges of your children, the whole order and validity of our 
covenant tranfaCtions, and even our very exifience as a church 
Moft folemnly, therefore, do the benefits which would refulé 
from your fidelity to your feed, and the evils which are now 
realized, and will forever be infeparable from the neglect of 
your duty, with the commands of your God and your own 2 
cred vows, now urge you to the invariable, and prayerful dift 
charge of your obligations. 


4. By our fubjegt we are dire€tly led to a more particula 
examination of the nature and tendency of the fentiments ang 
practices peculiar to the Baptifis* Here will be prefented 
view of their fentiments and practices, firft, concerning th 
baptifm of infants, and then concerning the mode of baptilm 
‘The view to be exhibited, every man, if he will faithfully ex 
amine it for himfelf, muft fee to be correét, and according t 
{cripture. 


Yet with the utmoft reluGtance, humility, and Chrifliar 
tendernefs, ought we, my brethren, to examine the peculiz 
fentiments and prattices of thofe, many of whom we confide 
the real friends of Chrift, and in a facred fenfe, our own bre 
thren. But asthe knowledge and_-praétice of the truth highly 
concern us as well as them, we are bound folemnly an 
prayerfully to fearch for it, and maintain it. Let us, how. 
ever, remember that we are examining not the hearts or mo 
ral chara¢ters of others, but their fentiments and practices 
Should we therefore, diffent. from their peculiarities, let the 
law of love reign in our hearts towards them. 


The Baptifts, to maintain their denial of Infant Baptifm 
are under the unavoidable neceflity of denying,- that the cove 
nant made with Abraham, was the covenant of grace, and tha 
the Ifraelites were the church of God. For, if the coveran 
with Abraham were that of grace, and be the foundation 0 


—— 


—--——— 


_* In compliance with the cuftom of late years, the writer has spoiled the name 
Baptists, to thofe, who ought to be called either Anabaptiste, becaufe they re-baptiz 
thofe, who have been baptized ; or Antipedo-baptists, becaule they deny the baptifi 
efinfants. They, however, are no more Baptilis than we. For we are as full am 
as invariable as they are, in the belief and praétice cf baptifm, But as Baptist mean 
a baptizer, none but baptizers fhould be called Baptitis. 5 


a°95 7) 
the gofpel church, then, as infants did formerly, fo they mule 
ew receive the feal of the covenant of grace. Or if the If- 
elites were the church of God, then, as infants were among 
fihem admitted, in many refpeCts, into the church of God, they 
“mull now be admitted into the fame relation to the church 
under the gofpel. ‘Thus, the neceflity of believing the bap- 
Mim of infants, or of denying the gracious nature of the cove- 
Mant with Abraham, and the exiftence of any church until. 
WGhnlt came, is abfolute and unavoidable. Hence, in full view 
of all the evidence of {cripture to the contrary, the Paptifis be- 
eye. that the covenant with Abraham was zot tliat of grace; 
(that it required nothing more than mere external. ceremonial 
Mebedience; and that it contained and promifed no higher 
"good than a certain traét of the globe, the Land of Canaan. 
Mifepplying to the covenant with Abraham thofe paflages of 
feripture, which teach the abrogation of the covenant made 
jith Ifrael at Sinai, they conclude, and as they fuppofe accord- 
ing to infpiration, that the covenant which God made with 
‘Abraham, and moft facredly confirmed, is now abolifhed. Yes, 
although the fcriptures declare concerning this covenant, “that 
fit had been but a man’s covenant, and had been confirmed, 
‘no man could difannul or add unto it, and that it was confirm- 
(ed of God in Christ,’—was confirmed not only by its frequent 
renewal, by the feal of circumcifion, and by the oath of Jeho- 
yah, but by the death, blood and refurre@tion of Chrift, and 
alfo by the defcent of the Holy Ghoft on the day of Pentecoft, 
and in fubfequent ages, to fulfil what God had in this cove- 
/nant promifed unto the fathers; yet the Baptifts utterly deny 
its perpetuity, and believe it long ago totally annulled. From 
‘the denial of the gracious nature, and continuance of the co- 
“yvenant, they are of neceflity led to deny that God had any 
“church, under the Old Tefiament. Indeed, they utterly deny, 
that the children of Ifrael, and all the holy men of old, confii- 
‘tuted a true church of God, or that there was any church on 
‘earth, for more than 4,000 years, or till the incarnation of 
Chrift! Although his church was the great obje@, for which 
God created the world; although he would, beyond doubt, 
introduce and eftablith in this hoftile world at en early period, 
his church, or a fpiritual kingdom, in oppofition to the king- 
“dom of darknefs ;—though he declared, that he had feparated 
‘the Ifraelites from all the other nations of the earth, to be his 
peculiar people, and ‘gave them good laws and flatutes ; 


hough he called them the Zion of the Lord of Hosts, and de- 
n » -- 


( 8 ) 


flared that he would make this Zion an eternal excéllende, ani 

that fooner than he would break his covenant with them, zhe| 
mountains should depart, and che bills be removed ; though Gos 

has exhibited all this proof, that he had a church under the 
former difpenfation, yet the Baptifts, partly becaufe many if 
the ancient church, like many in the church at this day, were 
exceedingly corrupt, do not hefiteate to declare, that God neve 
organized, and never had a church in the world, until the days 
of Chrift! Thus, this conclufion is certain, and level with t C) 
underftanding of every man, that they muft deny all thefe evi 
dent and important truths, or elfe if they admit them, that they 
mufl admit in connexion with them the right and duty of | le 
fant Baptifm. But the latter they deny, and thofe of the 

who have examined the ground on which they ftand, are co le 
vinced, that they must and they, in fact. do deny, that the coves 
nant with Abraham was the covenant of grace, and that the 


was any true church in the world under the whole of the fi 
difpenfation,* 


* The denial of the above-named truths draws after it as a confequence toa 
dire&t and unfcriptural to pafs without notice, a difpelief in the prefent an 
immutable importance of the fcriptures of the Old Teflament. As the 
venant with the Patriarch and as the Ifraelites confidered as the church a d 
peculiar people of God, conftitute the great and main theme of all the an. 
Cient prophets, the denial of the covenant and church-flate of the Ifraclites 
mult, of courfe, fap-almoft the whole of the Old Teftament. But to a 
the prefent importance of this portion of fcripture, when many peges a 
even books of it breath the moft evangelical devotion, when fome parts are 

-the faithful bitory of God's paft dealings with his own people, and other 
parts are fure prophecies of what awaits them, efpecially when the whole is 
the bafis on which refts the New Teftament,—is indeed to feparate the e fens 
tial parts of the one book of God. While fome and even too many of the 
Baptifls treat the Old Teftament as fcarcely worthy their perufal, it is cers 
tain that neither they nor other Chriftians have fo learned Chrift. For 
his prophets he has dire&ted all men,—To the law and to the testimony , 

‘and declared Téat boly men of old spake as they were moved by the Ho | 
Ghost, and that ALL scripture is given by INSPIRATION of Gon. and is 


PROFITABLE.—Alfo that Whatsoever things were written ASORETIME, 
wore written for OUR LEARNING. | 


, a 
The error of deaying the importance of the Old Teflament has been fol- 
Towed, by natural confequence, with the denial of the obligations to the baly 
obfervance of the Christian Sabbath. But this denial is altogether an ere 
ror; for God bimfelf obferved a Sabbath at the end of creation; Adamy 
when holy and happy in Paradife, was required to obferve a Sabbath; t 
Prophets have in various inftances, foretold the fagred obfervance of a Sab- 
bath under the gofpel ; Chrift foretold che fame, by dire&ting his difci- 
ples in Jerufalem to pray, that their flight from the city might not be of 
the Sabbath day ; the Apoftles and difciples of Chrift, after his afcenfion, 
have left us their example of obferving the Sabbath, in a facred manner ; t@ 
commemorate the work ef oreation, God required the holy obfervance ofa 


we 


i Cy ore} 


‘ 

_ All the implications of feripture which recognize, perpe- 
tuate and confirm under the gofpel the ancient relation of © 
children to the covenant and church of God have, in their view, 
no fuch meaning, or are wholly void of authority.x—Circum- 
cifion alfo they conjider a carnal ordinance, defigned barely to 
diftinguifh the If{raelites, as a people, from the other nations ' 
of the earth. All the evidence, that cireumcifion and baptifm 
are of the fame import, they totally reject; and perhaps with 
no flronger argument in their favour, than one which is an ar- 
gument in appearance only, and not in reality. Why, 
fay they, if thefe rites are of the fame import, why did Chrift 
and others who had received circumcifion, afterwards receive 
baptifm alfo? But it has been already fhown, that the bap- 
tifm of Chrift, which was his public ordination to,his minifiry, 
was in every refpect different from his circumcifion, and alfo 
from the baptifm of any of his difciples. ‘To fee the reafon 
why others, who had been circumcifed, did yet receive baptifm, 
we are to remember, that circumcifion was the token, or badge, 
‘or form of the feal, which diftinguifhed the firft difpenfation ; 
but baptifm is that badge, or form of the feal, which diflinguith- 
és and marks the Chriftian difpenfation.—In a word, thefe are 
marks of two different difpenfations. The Jews were exceed- 
ingly unwilling to furrender their peculiarities, for the fimpli- 
city and commands of Chrift. Hence there was no way, in 
which thofe of the Jews, who became his difciples, could pub- 
licly manifeft their readinefs to leave the forms of the firft dif. 
penfation, and to follow Chrift, but by receiving baptifm, the 
‘mark appointed by him, to diftinguifh his difciples. It was 
therefore matter of ferious importance, that all who had been 
‘eircumcifed, fhould embrace baptifm, in order to make opear 
declaration, that they were no longer under the law, but under 
(Chrift. In acafe fo uncommon, as the change of difpenfa- 
tions, the Son of God had the fovereign right, and viewed it 


the part of wifdom to require each of his difciples, whether 


—— 


a a ee, eres eee 


Sabbath for many «ges ; to commemorate the deliverance of Ifrael from bondé 
age, he enjoired npow them as his people the ftri&teft fan&tification of a Sabe 
| bath :—Therefore, in remembrance of the great deliverance and redemption 
jof man, by Jefus Chri, we mufi be bound by abligations of immutable and 
(the higheft importance, to fac€ily, in the most solemn manner, the Sabbath 
Mfacred to the honour of the Redeemer. But with all this evidence of the 
moral and perpetual obligation of the Chriftian Sabbath, the genera) part of 
)the Baprifls; wholly difpenfe. And that their profanation of the Sabbath, and 
Utreating it as ircevereatly as any other day, fhould give the world occafion 
ps0 {peak reproachfully, and to go and.do likewife, ip lamentable indced 5 and“ 
Hihall be for a lamentatione 


{ 88> y)- 


circumcifed or not, to teftify a cordial reception of him and 
his new difpenfaiion, by receiving baptifm in his name. Ai 
together weak and inconclufive then is the above named ob. | 
jection, with all the fimilar obje€tions of the Baptifis to overs 
throw the truth, which as we have already feen, the whole cur | 
rent of {cripture fupports, that circumcifion and baptifm are, | 
effentially, of one and the fame import. But the Baptifls, to 
difprove the doctrine of Infant Baptifm, are bound to prove, 
that circumcifion and baptifm are wholly different in their im-| 
port; or elfe they muft yield. to the conclufion. that infants 
muift now be allowed the feal of the covenant, even as afows 7 
time. 


9 


practice of Infant Baptifm, in the firft ages of Chriflianity, is 
clear and exprefs as could be expected or defired, yet this evi- 
dence the Raptifts totally reject. Some of them alfo declare, 
inthe moft confident, if not in the moft unchriftian manner, 
that the baptifm of infants, which has beyond doubt an earlier 
date than Papal errors,had its origin from and is a creature of 
the Romith Beaft !—Hence, my brethren, this ordinance which 
bas been viewed and obferved with the moft confcientious and 
folemn regard, by the great body of the Chriftian world, is by 
fome, (and we hope by a few cnly,) mentioned almoft with a 
fneer, and in thofe ftrains of lightnefs and contempt which are 
far from becoming thofe, who profefs themfelves the difciples 
ef the meek and lowly Jefus. 


‘Although the evidence from hiftory, to prove the ad 


. The Baptifts believe the baptifm of infants to be not only 
ufelefs, but of a pernicious tendency.—For they deny all the 
promifes and provifion of the covenant for the feed of believers, 
and affirm, that with all the other various and rich blefings 
which God in the covenant beftows upon his humble and obe- 
dient friends, he has not given them one promife, nor {poken 
a word of mercy with fpecial reference to their beloved feed. 
Yes, although believers have promife of food and’ raiment, 
and of eternal glory, yet fay the Baptifts, they have not, in the 
whole covenant of grace, one fpecial intimation of mercy for 
their children, though a tender part of themielves! But this 
opinion is contrary to the very nature and defign of family- 
relations, eftablifhed by God ;—contrary to all the principles 
of reafon’;—contrary to all the covenant tranfaGions of God 
with his people. In thus cutting-off the feed of believers from 
all conneCtion with the church and the covenant, they take 


4a ts r 


away the very ground on which God has taught his people they 
may humbly and believingly expect the falvation cf thole of 
their feed, who die in their early days. Becaufe God has faid 
to his people; Tse PROMIsE 7s unte you, and to YOUR CiiIL4 
DREN, they therefore hope for the falvation of their dying 
children. But as the Baptifls deny the extent of this covenant 
promife to children, or as they in fentiment take away the 
promife refpecting them, they do what tends totake away our 
hope concerning them, and to leave us in total uncertainty re- 
{pecting their future flate. But this promife and this hope con- 
cerning your offspring, Godhas afluredyou, are well fupported by 
his covenant. And as this error of the Baptifts is, in many 
cafes, not an obftinate crime of the heart, you ar¢ by no means 
to difbelieve, or even doubt, bat that they and their feed may 
‘partake of pardoning mercy and of redemption by Jefus 
Chrift.. But although baptifm can never fave any perfon, yet 
as it is the means appointed by God for conveying bleffings, 
they who exclude their feed from the ordinance, and the pro- 
mite of the covenant, certainly deprive themfelves of great con- 
folation, and expofe themfelves to the lofs of all covenant 
blefflings.—Thefe views of the Baptifls lead, dire€tly, to a ne- 
gle&t of the religious education of children, and of various im, 
portant family duties. Although fome of them are honourable. 
exceptions from this neglect, and are faithful in their houfes, 
yet many of them are examples of the full confequence of their 
opinion. As they believe their children have no place in the 
covenant, they view themfelves under no fpecial obligations 
to their feed. Hence their unfaithfulnefs in giving them reli- 
gious inftruGion and in praying with them. Not without the 
deepeft regret, can a faithful Chriftian confider the manner in 
which fome of thofe who have the vows of God upon them, 
totally negle&t the morning and evening worfhip of God in 
their houfes, and thus clafs themfelves with the families who 
call not upon the name of God; and at the fame time neglect, 
conftantly to inftru& their children in the things of God, and 
fuffer them, as they advance in age, to profane the Sabbath, 
and to follow, with little reftraint, the defires of their own 
hearts. 


Such, my brethren, are the nature and tendency of the Bap- 
tift fentiments refpeting the feed of believers. ‘Though fome 
of them may never have learnt, that thefe confequences follow 
from their fentiments ; though others perhaps, may, in part, 

M 


PME to 1 ees eee cae eyo Wa 


deny them; and though pthers: ftill do not carry them inte 
pra‘tice, but do honour to religion, in their families and in | 
their lives; yet the ftatement made is correét, and the confe. | 
quences drawn from their fentiments, are dire& and unavoid: | 
able. With the utmoft ferioufnefs and impartiality, then, | 
does it become them and us, to examine and afcertain the nae | 
ture of the covenant of grace, with the privileges and ftanding | 
allotted to the feed. of God’s people. } 


We now proceed to an examination of the nature and tens | 
dency of the Baptift fentiments and praétices, concerning the _ 
mode of baptifm. As they believe there can be no water bap+ | 
tifm but plunging, fo they believe, there can be no true church | 
of Chrifl, unlefs they embrace and praétife baptifm by plung- | 
ing. Affufion, fay they, is no baptifm; and until baptized, 
believers can never be in a regular church ftate. ‘Therefore, | 
all thofe bodies, who have réceived baptifm by {prinkling, and 
whom we call churches of Chrift, they believe and declare, 
are not his churches; but are companies united together ina _ 
manner irregular, and contrary to the gofpel. Such, my bre- £ 
thren, are the fentiments of almoft every Baptift church in our 
land. —In order to fupport their belief concerning their mode of © 
baptifm as alone right, they adduce feveral thingsfrom feripture, _ 
whicharetotally inconclufive and voidof weight. Uponthebare 
words, going down into, and coming up out of, the water, they | 
place as much ftrefs, as they would upon an exprefs com- a 
mand.—Chrift, fay they, went down into the water. We are 
to follow his example. As they imagine that going into the 
water is a great crofs, they declare the taking of it up, of vaft 
importance. But left they flould be found to make a crofs, 
and attempt to lay it upon others, they ought, before they dif- 
play their zeal about taking up the crofs, and following Chrift, 
firft to prove what they never can prove,—that believers are to 
be baptized, in imitation of Chrift; that immerfion isa duty, 
and one which is a crofs.—The burial with Chrift in baptifm, 
mentioned in feripture, which is a figurative and 1 hres 
burial, they view almoft demontftration, that believers muft be 
plunged into the water. From fuch mere appearances of evie: 
dence, they reje& all the arguments for fprinkling, and de-j 
clare, that believers must take up the crofs, mus: follow 
Chrift, and muse defcend into the warery_grave. Here, they 
difplay a zeal, but too well calculated to deceive and lead an 
firay from the fimplicity and truth of Chrift 


. 


| 


Ge adil 


Merely becaufe they have been plunged, they belies them- 
felves the only true church of Chrift ; or that he has not, ne- 
ver had, and never will have, any true church onearth, but 
theirs. But if this opinion be corre&, the church of Chrift 
is of late origin, and has comprifed very few members. The 
HIsTOKY of the Baptists fixes their origin with great certain- 
ty, to avery modern date. Certainly, in the firft four cen- 
turies after Chrift there were none, excepting the before men- 
.ed ‘Turtulian and Gregory, who doubted the right, and not 
_one who denied the univerfal practice; of Infant Baptifm. ‘o 
from the fourth to the eleventh century, Dr. Gill, a learned 
divine of the Baptift order, fays, that he was “‘ not able to 
“ find one instance of an opposer of Infant Baptism.” fin 
the twelfth century, fome of the Waldenfes or Albigenfes de- 
nied the baptifm of infants, ‘they foon dwindled away,” and 
nothing more was heard of fuch a fe until the rifing of the 
German Baptills, who appeared at Munfter about the year 
4522. ‘lo this period, the origin of the Baptill denomina- 
tion is traeed with clearnefs and certainty. or, until this pe- 
riod, Chriltians ea he admitted not only the baptifm of 
pao but alfo the validity of fprinking. Even thefe who 
_ practifed immerfion, never pretended, that this was the only 
-mode, or that they were the only true church. But, about 
1522, or lefs than 300 years ago, a feé& arofe, at firfi made great 
_,difturbance among Chriflians, practiled exceflive irregularities, 
_ denied the baptifm of infants, the validity of fprinkling, and 
-all communion with other churches, and were diflinguifhed 
by the name Anabaptists, beeaufe they re-baptized thefe. who 
_had been fprinkled. From them, the Baptilts of this day had 
their origin. If they be, therefore, as they believe, the only 
true chureh and people of God, then, hts church on earth was 
lately gathered, and has been furprifingly imal. For the Bap- 
tills are now, and have ever been, far lefs numerous than faith- 
ful Chriftians of other denominations. This affertion, the bet- 
ter informed among the Baptifts, and all, who have a tolerable 
acquaintanee with the hiftory of the different fects of Chriftians, 
readily acknowledge. Ever fince the origin of the Baptilts, 
-or ever fince the Great Reformation, about three centuries ago, 
none can doubt, but the great body of faithful Chriftians have. 
believed in fprinkling, and in the baptifm of infants. Yet alk 
thefe Chriftians, all thefe churches the Laptifts affirm were no 
churches! [But is any man capable of believing, that God has 
left the great body of his own people, to be ineflgatial errors 


{ 92 J 


concerning his ordinances, and guided only a few into them! 
Can any man believe, that God views the Baptilts his only 
churches, and that befides them he has not another on earth} 
Yet all this the Baptifls believe, and confidently aflert! My 
brethren, they utterly deny our church ftate. ‘They aflert, 
that we have: never been baptized, and of courfe cannot be 

churches. ‘hey deny the validity and order, not only of our 
baptifm, but of all our ordinations, of our facred celebration of | 
the Lord’s Supper, and of all the rites and folemnities of our 
churches. ‘lhey totally reje€t us from their communion.— | 
Notwithftanding our difagreement concerning baptifm, we are 
ready, on any fuitable occafion, to go to their Sacrament V2 
ble, orto epen our doors, and cordially receive them*to our 
‘Table; yet they will neither fuffer us to approach their “able,” 
nor will they, even if invited, come to ours! Inftances might 
be named, in which they have pofitively denied the requeft of | 
our members, for the privilege of communing with them !—| 
"Yhus adopting it as an invariable principle, that they will hold 

no communion with us, they caft out, from all church privi+” 
leges, into the wide world, lying in fin and wickednefs, the _ 
whole order ef Pedobaptift Chriflians and churches! 


Re-baptizirg thofe who have been once baptized with us, 
and attempts to difturb our churches, are the next ftep to which | 
they advance. - But to fupport their praétice of re-baptizing, © 
they are under folemn obligations firft to prove, that fprinkling © 
is not baptifm. that perfons once {prinkled have not the feal — 
of the covenant upon them; that children have no conneétion © 
with believing parents; that plunging is an essent-al part of ~ 
baptifm ; and that it is, neither in them, nor in thofe who fub- ~ 
mit to a fecond baptifm, a profanation of the ordinance and © 
name of God. ‘Thefe things they are bound to prove, in the ~ 
fulleft manner. Barely to imagine, re-baptizing proper and 
right, is not fufficient. For the end of a way, which feemeth 
yight unto aman, may be death. ‘The Baptifts then before — 
they, without the leaft relutance, trample under foot the bap- 
tfm which we view the folemn ordinance of God, are bound | 
to prefent full proof for their fupport. But in too many cafes 
do they attempt to carry their unfupported fentiments con. 
cerning our churches into praftice. Inone inftance well known 
to you myhearers, a large part of achurch.who had been baptiz- 
ed by aifufion, were treated by the Baptifts as though they had © 
mever been baptized ; as though they were no church, but a — 
company of the world; and their minifter, as though he had ~ 
is 7 


(93) 


meyer received ordination. The part of the church were 
plunged ; the minifter was ordained, and they were formed in- 
to achurch! All this was done by the Baptifts! This fhows 
‘you their view of our churches; ~and the nature of their fen- 
timents carried into practice, even that they believe God has 
left the whole order of the Pedobaptift Chriflians in every age 
o eflential errors; that they*themfelves are the only church 
of God; and that they would cheerfully annihilate every 
church, of our order! Befides this, not unfrequent are their 
attempts to perfuade our members te leave us, to go down inte 
the water, and unite with them. In this way they perplex 
weak minds, and fpread diforder and divyifion into our charch- 
€s. In view of thefe things none can, but with the utmoft difii- 
culty, refift the conclufion, that the Baptift opinion concerning 
the mode of baptifin is altogether an error. Nor is the con- 
clufion lefs obvious,-or certain, that 


Close communion is altogether unchristian in principle and prac- 
tice. —Clofe communion, or communion with none excepting 
thofe who have been plunged, is folemnly forbidden by the de- 
fign of the Chriftian church ;—by the beftowment of promifed 
and fpecial bleffings on Pedobaptift churches ;—by the gofpel 
term of Chriflian communion :—by the nature and duty of 
brotherly love ;—by the fchifm produced among Chriflians by 
clofe communion ;—and by the tendency of revivals in reli- 
gion. 


By the defign of the Chriflian church. In eftablifhing his 
church, the undoubted defign of Chrift was, by them to preserve 
in the world the great doctrines and duties of revealed religion. 
Accordingly, by the fpirit of infpiration, he has reprefented his 
church as the pittar and crounn of the TrRuTH. But can 
the Baptilts pretend, that their church has been the main fup- 
port of the truth and worfhip of God in the world? Certainly, 
other Chriftians have adopted and maintained the truth and the 
worthip of God. Certainly, other Chriflians have been and flill 
are far more numerous, equally prayerful and faithful, and fae 
gnore eminent as the pillar and the ground of the truth, than 
the Baptifls. In the long period from the Apoftles to the days 
of Luther, Chriflians were not Baptifts. ‘To introduce and 
catry through the great reformation from Popery, the inflru- 
ments chofen and ufed by God were not Baptifis. Nor did 
the fubjecis of the reformation become Baptifts. The molt 
able defenders of the faith, and the moft eminently faithful 


a a 


churches whom God has raifed up in later ages, have not been 
Baptifls. And although in fome places, the Baptifts at thi: 
day are numerous, and fome of them diftinguifhed for thei 
abilities and piety, yet it is certain, the main pillar of the truth, 
‘or the largeft number of faithful Chriflians are not Baptifts. | 
Hence clofe communion is forbidden by the very defign of the 
‘church, which is to maintain, not the Baptift peculiarities, but 
‘the truth and worship of God ; and by the abfolute faéts, that. 
other Chriftians and churches, whom they reject, have been, 
more than they, the pillar and ground of the truth.—Alfo, by) 
the beftowment of promifed and fpecial bleffings upon Pedos| 
baptift churches. ‘l'o Zion God has made promife, that as fhe] 
fhall be the fupport of the truth ; fo of her it shall be said, 7 his 
and tbat man was born inher ; and, I will pour my spirit on thy | 
seed and my blessing on thy offspring ; 1 will give ber pastors and) 
teachers after mine own heart ; 1 will clothe ber priests with sala) 
vation, and her saints shall shout aloud for joy. Thefe promitfes’ 
have been fulfilled principally to the Pedobaptift church. If 
then the Baptifis pretend that they are the only church, they 
mutt go in the very face of God’s promifes, which are made to 
Zion in general, and of the fulfilment of thefe promifes to our 
churches. Clofe communion then is clearly forbidden by the 
befipwment of {pecial bleffings on thofe, who deny the opinion 
of the Baptifls—And by the gofpel termof Chriftian communion, 
The term of communion eflablifhed by Chrift, is undeniably 
this ; that we and ihe Baptists are bound to commune wiih 
those, with whom there is evidence to believe that Christ commuties. 
Would it not be prefumption and the height of arrogance for 
us to fay, though we believe Chrift communes with certaia 
perfons, yet we will not commune with them; or that we have 
the right and are determined to make the rules of our churche 
fuch, that.we will have no communion with them! But all this 
the Baptiftsimplicitlyfay,andinrealitydo! If perfons have been 
plunged, they welcome them totheir communion. If they have 
beenonly {prinkled, but yetmanifeft in the higheft degree the very 
spirit of Chrilt, they abfolutely forbid them a feat at their Table ! 
‘Lhis is to make plunging, and not evidence of faith in Chrift, the 
term of their communion; it is tomake a bare mode, a mere rit 
as effential to communion as an interefl in the blood and righte- 
oufnets of Chri! It is to reject the moft prayerful and eminen 
fervants of Chrift, merely becaufe they have not been plunged 
But are fuch, mybrethren, the laws and rules of Chrifi’s chureh 
Go, afk the Lord of glory! Go,fee him inthe midft oe eg 
communing with multitudes whom the Baptifts reject, and th : 


c oF } 


you will believe them the people, who arrogantly and wickedly 
fay to others ; Stand by thyself ; Lam holier than thou ! Clole 
communion is forbidden by the nature and duty of brotherly 
love. Chriftians are brethren, by the neareft and ftrongeft ties. 
They all have one Father—one heart and one fpirit, one intereft 
and one heaven. In fhort, they are brethren for eternity. 
They are commanded by their Lord, so live in peace, to be of 
the same mind, and to be perfectly joined together. But is it 
not matter of deep aftonifhment, that fuch brethren will not 
commune together ;—will not fet together at their Father’s 
table !—Clofe communion is forbidden by the fchifm, which it 
produces among Chriftians, The church of Chrift is repre- 
fented as a kingdom united againft one enemy; in one king, 
one fyftem of laws, one interelt, one hope, and one reft ;—as a 
body perfectly compacted and joined together ;—as one tem- 
ple ;—as one united family ;—and as the houfe of God, in which 
he prefides. But this one kingdom, this one body, this one 
temple, this united family, and houfe of God, clofe commu- 
nion rends. It divides brethren, grieves the difciples of 
Chriff, wounds him in the houfe of his friends, and gives the 
enemy occafion to doubt, or deny the nature, reality and im- 
portance of Chriftianity. Addtothefe effects of clofecommu- 
nion, the tendency of revivals in religion. Let but a folémn 
and general revival of religion take place, in purity and power, 
among the Baptifls and our order intermingled, and all party 
feelings and intereft will be almoft buried; the Baptifts will 
hardly fay to us, Stand by thyself; but calling us brethren, 
they would, were it not for deep-rooted prejudices, hold open 
church communion with us. For, this their feelings both dic- 
tate and urge. Did the fpirit of Chriftian candour, meeknet(s 
and love, triumph in the hearts of all Chriflians, an event 


which has been realized more than once in London, would, 


only in a lower degree, be conftantly realized by us and the 
Baptifls. For feveral years paft there has been annually hold- 
en in London, a grand convention and communion of férious 
Chriftians throughout England. At one Meeting of their Mif- 
fionary Society, ¢wo thousand five hundred Chriftians of differ- 
ent denominations aflembled, buried their party diftinétions, and 


_ united together in divine worfhip, in commemorating the death 
_of their common Lord; and in making colleélion to fpread 
| the gofpel to the diftant corners of the world. ‘Then was there 


prefented one of the moft folemn and interefting events which 


- have occurred fince the day of Pentecoft. Then was prefented 


the power of that love and union of kindred fouls, which is in- 


eS F 


fpired by the Spirit of Jefus.—Were but the power of ua : 
thoroughly felt, it would flay and bury clofe communion; * 
would bring us and the Baptilts together ;~-it would harmonizé 
us and them, in the one glorious temple of Chrift. From this 
view we cannot, if we poffefs the temper of heaven, prevent 
the deepeft regret, that the Baptifts fhould rend and wound the 
church of God by contending for immerfion, the mere exter- 
nal mode of an ordinance, and for clofe communion wang is 
fo evidently built upon unchriftian principles. 


Finally ;—This fubje&, my hearers, fuggefts a word in yet 
more direét application to yourfelves. Upon you, my bre- 
thren, it imprefles the duty as folemn and indifpenfible, that 
you fhould be meek but firm, open and decided in maintaining 
the great privileges and bleffings of the covenant with Abra- 
ham. For thefe, as for the faith once delivered to the faints, 
you are humbly and earnettly to contend. Upon you, who 
have been baptized and are the feed of the church, God has 
fixed the feal of his covenant ; you he claims and blefles from 
your birth. Feel your indebtednefs to God for making you 
the offspring of religious parents, for oflering you {pecial cove- 
nant bleflings, and for putting you under the care of his church.” 
Be not guilty of the facrilege of withholding your hearts from 
God, and felling yourlelves to work wickednefs. But feel and 
obey the covenant obligations lying upon you. Parents, who 
have not embraced the covenant for themfelves or their feed, 
can but feel a folemn admonition from the whole of our fubje&. 
To fuch of you, the profpe& of meeting your children at the 
tribunal of the final Judge, muft be diltreffing ; ; and muft urge’ 
you now to improve every means for your own and for their 
falyation. Upon you, who have never been baptized, upon 
all you who are impenitent, our fubje&t moft folemnly enjoins 
the duty of immediate repentance. ‘This is the eftablithed, 
the only term of an eternal intereft in the covenant. Therefore, 
by all the promiles, by all the infinite bleflings of the covenant, 
by all the curfes of the law, 2nd by all the examples of Gad’s 
vengeance, by all the folemnity of life, death, the grave, hea- 
ven and hell; by the whole vafl work of redemption, are you 
urged this day to hear the voice which fpeaketh to each of you~ 
from heaven ;—ReEpent and Betteve on the Lorp Jesus 
Curist, and THOU SHALT BE SAVED, and ALL THINE HOUSE. 
— or, then, the PROMISE 1S UNTO You, aid TO YOUR CNIL-~ 


DREN. 
Af TB i 


c 7 “az io ’ 
2 a ae 
es . NOT 805 i, > ~ ¢ 
= é = be ree ~ ‘ 7% . 4 ra “7 oaks * “i Me — 
tety in a de ees a: Bein iat ; 


Snitwith <) & Pee eR aney ee 


« 


oe eee Mae ‘eng te ete a 3 a | 
a teks bees vel, ay Tet aa. ; 


wa) Pt See wks? “eA 


op ehinizes ibe (isaac. RARE 
edith: bs tae aod wae 
Stat Hef ‘ (7S Grew - a 4 8 Ue! See A 
saa? ot! Seeetiggn. .Wo ats —e3 8 


A: ae MG ¢> is Li Faye 


ik ws SS @R sat Hee. Hee 
ee eh Ge ee 
~< ‘ab s q ayy Ser Uwe ae Bi es - fy wt. 

4 . oe | J 


ry hwy are y _— - 


ne *. ‘ @y 4 


riers thee if sikh 
e Oe Tatobaf ls faith ni “4 . 
\ h, Denith Kt ctl | 
{ g of Siabogue Gr Sa .. 
4 4 AN ret Sermorrs Ondn hgarit bapliran 
he jules Me Carstes cheba 


oe, 


ae 7 « 
: = == 
MGS -e— - 
= F * 
: - 
3 - a a 


Mh 


HH WU ii 


HH 
i ill 


Ns¢ec27bl00 


SLL 


Ser. 


